2010 (1) TMI 701 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - assessee debited an amount of Rs.26,52,404/- to profit and loss account under the head building renovation account written off - There is no dispute that the assessee had incurred expenditure in 1997 and the expenditure was claimed as deferred revenue expenditure over the period of the life of the assets - It is a settled law that the ld. CIT (A) had concurrent powers with that of the assessing officer. If the entire amount was to be disallowed, he could have enhanced the assessment by issue of show cause notice, but the same was not done - The consequence of amendment made with retrospective effect is that powers under section 263 of the ld. Commissioner shall extend and shall be deemed always extended to such matters as had not been considered and decided in appeal - Held that the disallowance of Rs 2,65,340/- out of Rs.26,53,404/- was subject matter of appeal before the ld. CIT (A) and hence in view of clause (c) of Explanation to section 263 the ld. Commissioner has no jurisdiction to revise the order - Decided in favor of the assessee

Summary

Issues Involved:
Cancellation of assessment under section 263 of the Income-tax Act for assessment year 2003-04 due to disputed expenditure claimed under "building renovation account written off."

Analysis:
1. Issue of Cancelling Assessment under Section 263:
- The primary issue in this case revolves around the cancellation of the assessment under section 263 of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 2003-04. The dispute arose due to the assessing officer allowing the expenditure claimed under the head "building renovation account written off" amounting to Rs.26,84,404/- instead of Rs.2,65,404/-, which was 10% of the amount written off.

2. Assessing Officer's Disallowance and Subsequent Appeals:
- The assessing officer disallowed 10% of the total expenditure as an ad-hoc basis during the assessment proceedings. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) directed the assessing officer to delete this addition in the appeal filed by the assessee. Subsequently, the Commissioner issued a notice under section 263, contending that the entire expenditure incurred on building renovation should have been disallowed, resulting in under-assessment of income.

3. Contentions and Legal Arguments:
- The assessee argued that the assessing officer had conducted a thorough inquiry before making the disallowance and that no further action could be taken under section 263 as the matter had been considered and decided in appeal. However, the Commissioner relied on legal precedents to assert the power to set aside the assessment order for fresh adjudication if deemed necessary.

4. Judicial Analysis and Decision:
- The Tribunal analyzed the facts and legal provisions, emphasizing that the Commissioner (Appeals) had the authority to decide on the issue of ad-hoc disallowance. It was noted that the assessing officer's decision to disallow only 10% of the expenses was unsustainable based on legal precedents. The Tribunal cited relevant case laws to establish that the Commissioner's powers under section 263 did not extend to matters already considered and decided in appeal.

5. Final Decision and Order:
- After considering the arguments and legal principles, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order under section 263 and restored the assessing officer's order. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed, emphasizing the jurisdictional limitations of the Commissioner under section 263 in revising orders already decided in appeal.

In conclusion, the judgment highlights the importance of adherence to legal procedures and the boundaries of jurisdiction under the Income-tax Act, emphasizing the need for thorough consideration of issues before invoking provisions such as section 263 for assessment cancellations.