9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (8) TMI 486 - AT - Income TaxDeduction u/s 80IB - The revised computation of income was filed wherein the assessee himself gave effect to interest from FDR and Shivam Cotton Corpn. and proportionate interest on the funds deployed from the borrowers resulting into the amount of Rs. 24, 83, 387/-u/s 80IB against Rs. 32, 82, 040/- originally claimed - There is no justification either including the interest income in the profit side as appearing in investment side or considering the interest income paid on borrowed funds in investment side in recasted profit & loss account - The assessee himself excluded the amount of Rs. 1, 75, 000/- being proportionate interest of the funds invested by the proprietor out of the borrowed funds therefore the amount of Rs. 24, 83, 387/-is rightly eligible as income from industrial undertaking consequently find no infirmity in the impugned order directing to grant deduction @100% on this amount for deduction u/s 80IB of the Act - The same is upheld. As regards the cross-objection file by of the assessee wherein the only ground raised is that the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) and the impugned order dated 4.2.2010 are without jurisdiction and therefore bad in law - The crux of arguments on behalf of the assessee is that the TRO framing the assessment was not authorised to make assessment as the TRO cannot assume the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer. - Held that - a specific order was passed by the ld. JCIT authorising the TRO to work as Assessing Officer by virtue of powers vested in her by sec. 120(5) of the Act therefore these judicial pronouncements may not help the assessee consequently find no merit in the cross-objection of the assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility of interest income for deduction under Section 80IB of the Income Tax Act. 2. Jurisdiction and authority of the Tax Recovery Officer (TRO) to act as the Assessing Officer. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Eligibility of Interest Income for Deduction under Section 80IB: The Revenue contended that the first appellate authority erred in directing the Assessing Officer to grant 100% deduction on total profits of the industrial undertaking, which included interest income that is not eligible for deduction under Section 80IB of the Income Tax Act. The assessee had started a new industrial undertaking in a remote backward area and claimed a 100% deduction under Section 80IB. The assessee also earned income from house property and other sources. The Assessing Officer recasted the profit and loss account and found that the claimed deduction included interest income from Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDR) and deposits with Shivam Cotton Corporation, which are not qualified to be treated as income derived from the industrial undertaking. The assessee, in response to the notice, appeared before the Assessing Officer and produced books of account, vouchers, and other required details. The revised return filed by the assessee excluded the interest income from FDR and Shivam Cotton Corporation, resulting in the revised eligible amount of Rs. 24,83,387 under Section 80IB, against the originally claimed Rs. 32,82,040. The tribunal found no infirmity in the impugned order directing to grant deduction at 100% on the revised amount of Rs. 24,83,387, and upheld the order. 2. Jurisdiction and Authority of the TRO to Act as the Assessing Officer: The assessee raised a cross-objection challenging the jurisdiction of the TRO to act as the Assessing Officer, arguing that the TRO was not authorized to make assessments. The assessee relied on several judicial decisions, including Bindal Apparels Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT, to support their claim that the TRO cannot assume the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer. The Revenue argued that the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (JCIT) is empowered to authorize any person to work as the Assessing Officer, and the TRO was assigned this role by the JCIT-Khandwa by order dated 27.2.2006. The tribunal considered the provisions of Section 2(7A) and Section 120 of the Income Tax Act, which define the jurisdiction and authority of Income Tax Officers. The tribunal noted that the JCIT had specifically authorized the TRO to make assessments, and the TRO and ITOs are of the same rank within the department. The tribunal concluded that the TRO, under the facts stated, can act as the Assessing Officer. The tribunal also addressed the reliance on Bindal Apparels Ltd., noting that the decision was made before the Finance Act 2007, which retrospectively included the Additional Commissioner in the definition of "Assessing Officer." The tribunal found no merit in the assessee's claim and upheld the authorization of the TRO to act as the Assessing Officer. Conclusion: The tribunal dismissed both the appeal of the Revenue and the cross-objection of the assessee. The tribunal upheld the order granting 100% deduction on the revised amount of Rs. 24,83,387 under Section 80IB and confirmed the jurisdiction of the TRO to act as the Assessing Officer.
|
