2013 (1) TMI 65 - HC - Income Tax

Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue u/s 263 - CIT(A)s revision orders quashed by ITAT - nature of expenses incurred in foreign exchange for the purpose of determining the deduction under Section 10A - Held that - Before jurisdiction u/s 263 can be exercised, CIT must be satisfied that the order of the AO is prejudicial to the interest of revenue and also erroneous. In the present case, the order of the CIT holds that the order is erroneous as further inquiries were not made. However, no further inquiries were warranted as there was no occasion for the AO to doubt the particulars to examine the same further. Besides, it is undisputed position that the nature of service are such that the services are being provided in India and thereafter merely transmitted to Standard and Poor. Therefore, the foreign exchange expenses relating to travel, professional fees and other matters are not incurred in providing technical services outside India. Further the expenses in foreign exchange have been reimbursed and therefore were not originally included in export turnover by the respondent assessee so as to rework the same. Thus no fault can be found in the order of the Tribunal - no substantial questions of law.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) related to the Assessment Year 2004-05 under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Questions of law formulated by the revenue:
a) Tribunal's justification in quashing the order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
b) Tribunal's justification in not excluding certain expenses from export turnover for computing exemption u/s. 10A of the IT Act.
c) Tribunal's justification in not including reimbursement of certain expenses in the total turnover.
d) Tribunal's justification in quashing the order u/s. 263 of the IT Act, 1961.

Analysis:

1. The respondent, engaged in rating, advisory, research, and information services, claimed exemption under Section 10A of the Act for the Assessment Year 2004-05. The Assessing Officer allowed a deduction of Rs.1.42 crores instead of Rs.1.43 crores claimed. The Commissioner of Income Tax, under Section 263, found the assessment order erroneous due to non-exclusion of foreign exchange expenses from export turnover. The order was set aside for reassessment.

2. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner assumed jurisdiction based on insufficient inquiries by the Assessing Officer regarding foreign exchange expenses. It noted that the expenses were reimbursed without profit and referred to a precedent supporting the respondent's position. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, stating that no further inquiries were necessary as the expenses were not incurred in providing services outside India.

3. The High Court observed that for Section 263 to apply, the order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. In this case, no further inquiries were needed as the nature of services did not involve foreign expenses for services provided in India. As the expenses were reimbursed and not included in export turnover, the Tribunal's decision was upheld, dismissing the appeal.

4. The Court concluded that the questions raised did not constitute substantial questions of law. The appeal was dismissed with no costs awarded. The judgment affirmed the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the lack of fault in quashing the order under Section 263 and the non-inclusion of certain expenses in turnover calculations for exemption under Section 10A of the IT Act.