2014 (1) TMI 861 - AT - Income Tax

Power of Revision u/s 263 of the Act - Deduction u/s 10A of the Act wrongly allowed Held that - The assessment order passed by the AO is a cryptic one and it did not contain any discussion on the issues that were revised by the CIT u/s 263 of the Act - relying upon CIT Vs. Toyota Motor Corporation 2008 (4) TMI 231 - DELHI HIGH COURT - the issue of deduction u/s 10A has been decided in favour of the assessee, yet the revision order passed by CIT is liable to sustained, since the AO did not make enquiry on the issue and further there is no discussion about the same in the assessment order. Depreciation on vehicle Vehicle running on hire was allowed @ 40% as against 25% allowable Held that - There was no discussion in respect of this issue in the assessment order - the assessee did not make any submissions on this issue before the CIT there is no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT on this issue Decided against Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal challenging revisional order passed by Ld. CIT under section 263 of the Act for assessment year 2005-06.
2. Deduction under section 10A wrongly allowed due to negative total income.
3. Depreciation on vehicle running on hire allowed at 40% instead of 25%.

Analysis:
1. The assessee filed an appeal against the revisional order by Ld. CIT under section 263 of the Act for the assessment year 2005-06, despite the appeal being delayed by 36 days. The delay was condoned, and the appeal was admitted for hearing.
2. The first issue concerned the deduction under section 10A, which was allowed to the assessee despite having a negative total income. The Ld. CIT found the order erroneous as the deduction was claimed for a profitable unit while the total income was negative. The Ld. CIT rejected the assessee's argument citing the lack of estoppel in fiscal statutes.
3. The assessee argued that a similar issue was decided in their favor by the Cochin Bench of ITAT for the assessment year 2003-04. However, the Ld. CIT disagreed, emphasizing that the assessing officer's lack of inquiry made the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue interests.
4. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Malabar Industrial Co. case, highlighting the importance of the assessing officer's inquiry. The Bombay High Court's decision in Grasim Industries Ltd. case was also cited to explain the scope of section 263, emphasizing that the order must be considered erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.
5. Despite the deduction issue being in favor of the assessee, the revision order was upheld due to the AO's failure to inquire and discuss the matter in the assessment order.
6. The second issue regarding depreciation on vehicles was not discussed in the assessment order, and the assessee did not present any submissions on this matter before the Ld. CIT. Hence, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the Ld. CIT's decision on this issue.
7. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT's decision to invoke section 263 jurisdiction for the discussed issues, leading to the dismissal of the assessee's appeal.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal arguments, precedents, and decisions that shaped the outcome of the case.