2011 (6) TMI 188 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - Capital or revenue expenditure - Commissioner of Income-tax in the notice issued has mentioned that the expenditures were capital in nature. However, in the revision order he has held that the there was patent lack of enquiry on the part of the Assessing Officer. This lack of enquiry in his opinion, has rendered the assessment order passed erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of justice - assessment order does not give reason for allowing the expenditure and Assessing Officer did not make further enquiry, it cannot be said there was lack of enquiry in this case - There is due enquiry by the Assessing Officer, though it has been considered to be inadequate by the CIT, recourse under section 263 cannot be made - Decided in favour of the assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income-tax Act.
2. Treatment of regulatory charges, product launch expenditure, stamp duty under bank charges as capital in nature.
3. Enquiries conducted by the Assessing Officer regarding loan arrangement fee and stamp duty charges.

Issue 1: Jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income-tax Act:
The appeal challenged the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) regarding the initiation of proceedings under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Assessee contended that the assumption of jurisdiction under section 263 was erroneous, as the Assessing Officer had duly sought details before passing the order. The Assessee also argued that if two views were possible and the Assessing Officer had taken one view, the Commissioner could not substitute it. The Commissioner held that the lack of enquiry by the Assessing Officer rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. However, the Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had made necessary enquiries, and even if they were inadequate, it did not warrant action under section 263. Citing the case law of CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd., the Tribunal concluded that the order under section 263 lacked jurisdiction and quashed it.

Issue 2: Treatment of regulatory charges, product launch expenditure, stamp duty under bank charges as capital in nature:
The ld. Commissioner of Income-tax noted that certain expenditures claimed by the Assessee, such as regulatory fees, product launch expenditure, and stamp duty under bank charges, were capital in nature and should have been disallowed. The Assessee argued that these expenditures were revenue in nature and not subject to amortization under section 35ABB. The Commissioner disagreed, stating that these expenditures were for the acquisition of intangible assets and had enduring benefits for the Assessee. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner's decision was based on a lack of enquiry by the Assessing Officer, and as such, the order was quashed due to jurisdictional issues.

Issue 3: Enquiries conducted by the Assessing Officer regarding loan arrangement fee and stamp duty charges:
The ld. Commissioner of Income-tax noted that due enquiries were not conducted by the Assessing Officer regarding the loan arrangement fee and stamp duty charges. The Assessee contended that these were allowable revenue expenditures and cited relevant case laws to support their argument. The Commissioner held that the lack of enquiry by the Assessing Officer rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. However, the Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had made enquiries and the Assessee had provided detailed responses. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that there was no lack of enquiry and quashed the order under section 263.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the Assessee, quashing the order under section 263 of the Income-tax Act for lack of jurisdiction.