9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (3) TMI 147 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue - held that - In view of the above facts and case laws of Tata Tea Ltd. 2010 (1) TMI 743 - KERALA HIGH COURT and Girnar Industries (2009 (8) TMI 676 - KERALA HIGH COURT), as referred by the Ld. Counsel the case law of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2000 (2) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT), is applicable to the facts of this case. Hon ble Supreme Court has considered the phrase prejudicial to the interest of the revenue , and interpreted that it has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the AO and every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of AO, it cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act after due consideration of facts as well as the revision order of CIT passed u/s. 263 of the Act that there is no dispute regarding the fact that the assessee is exclusively engaged in blending and packaging of tea for export and is not manufacturing or producing any other article or thing but still it is recognised as a 100% EOU unit by a Board appointed by central government in exercise of powers conferred u/s. 40 of the Industries (Development & Regulation) Act, 1951 and the Rules made thereunder. The view taken by the AO is not unsustainable rather it is a view which is sustainable - Decided in favor of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the CIT's order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether the activity of blending and packaging of tea qualifies as "manufacture" or "production" under section 10B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the CIT's order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The primary issue in this appeal is the challenge against the CIT's order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which revised the assessment order passed under section 143(3) for the assessment year 2002-03. The CIT held that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue because it allowed the assessee's claim for exemption under section 10B, which the CIT believed was wrongly granted. The assessee argued that the CIT's order was unjustified as the original assessment order was neither erroneous in law nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The assessee contended that the AO had taken a permissible view by allowing the exemption under section 10B, and this view was sustainable in law. The assessee further argued that the CIT's revisionary powers under section 263 could not be invoked merely because the CIT disagreed with the AO's view. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC), which clarified that an order could only be considered prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue if it was unsustainable in law. The Tribunal found that the AO had taken a possible view, supported by legal precedents, and thus the CIT's invocation of section 263 was not justified. 2. Whether the activity of blending and packaging of tea qualifies as "manufacture" or "production" under section 10B of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The second issue revolves around whether the assessee's activity of blending and packaging tea qualifies as "manufacture" or "production" under section 10B, which would entitle the assessee to claim exemption. The assessee argued that its blending and packaging activities constituted "manufacture" or "production" as per the inclusive definition provided in the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005, and the Finance Act, 2000. The assessee cited various case laws, including Tata Tea Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2011) 338 ITR 285 (Ker) and Girnar Industries Vs. CIT (2011) 338 ITR 277 (Ker), where similar activities were considered as manufacturing or production. The Revenue, on the other hand, argued that the deletion of the definition clause of "manufacture" from section 10B with effect from the assessment year 2001-02 implied that "processing" no longer qualified for exemption. The Revenue relied on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT Vs. Tara Agencies (2007) 292 ITR 444 (SC), which held that blending of tea did not amount to manufacture or production. The Tribunal noted that the Kerala High Court in Tata Tea Ltd. and Girnar Industries had considered the definition of "manufacture" under the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005, which included blending, and had held that such activities qualified for exemption under section 10B. The Tribunal observed that the AO had taken a view consistent with these judgments, and thus the assessment order was not erroneous. The Tribunal concluded that the AO had adopted a permissible view, and the CIT's order under section 263 was not sustainable. The Tribunal quashed the CIT's revision order and allowed the assessee's appeal. Conclusion: The Tribunal held that the CIT's order under section 263 was not justified as the AO had taken a permissible view supported by legal precedents. The Tribunal also held that the assessee's activity of blending and packaging tea qualified as "manufacture" or "production" under section 10B, entitling the assessee to claim exemption. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the CIT's revision order was quashed.
|
