9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (3) TMI 329 - AT - Income TaxValidity of revision order - Power of CIT to invoke revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act Deduction u/s 80P(2)(c) of the Act - Held that - The decision in Grasim Industries Ltd. V CIT 2010 (2) TMI 4 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT followed - Section 263 of the Act empowers the Commissioner to call for and examine the record of any proceedings under the Act - if he considers that any order passed therein, by the Assessing Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, to pass an order upon hearing the assessee and after an enquiry as is necessary, enhancing or modifying the assessment or cancelling the assessment and directing a fresh assessment. As decided in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT 2000 (2) TMI 10 - SUPREME Court - the provision cannot be invoked to correct each and every type of mistake or error committed by the Assessing Officer and it is only when an order is erroneous that the section will be attracted - an incorrect assumption of fact or an incorrect application of law, will satisfy the requirement of the order being erroneous - An order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice or without application of mind, would be an order falling in that category - the assessing officer has given a categorical finding that the assessee is not a cooperative bank thus, in that case the assessee would be eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(c) - the revision order passed by CIT does not fall within the mandate of the provisions of sec. 263 of the Act the order of the CIT(A) set aside Decided in favour of Assessee.
Issues:
Validity of revision order u/s 263 of the Act for the assessment year 2009-10 based on deduction u/s 80P granted to the assessee without considering amended provisions of sec. 80P(4) of the Act. Analysis: 1. The appeal challenged the revision order passed by Ld CIT u/s 263 of the Act for the assessment year 2009-10, questioning the validity of the revision order. The Ld CIT initiated revision proceedings after noticing that the AO granted deduction u/s 80P to the assessee without considering the amended provisions of sec. 80P(4) of the Act, deeming the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interests. 2. The assessee contended that sec. 80P(4) was not applicable as it was a credit co-operative society, not a co-operative bank, citing relevant case laws. However, the Ld CIT disagreed, directing the AO to examine the deduction u/s 80P. The assessee then appealed, arguing that the AO's view was reasonable, supported by tribunal decisions, and the revision proceedings should be set aside. 3. The controversy focused on sec. 80P(4), which states that the deduction is not available to a co-operative bank. The Ld CIT believed the assessee might fall under sec. 80P(4) and criticized the AO for not assessing its applicability. The Tribunal analyzed the legal position regarding the Ld CIT's power to invoke revision proceedings under sec. 263, emphasizing that the order must be erroneous and prejudicial to revenue, not just any mistake. The Tribunal found the AO's view reasonable and not unsustainable in law, thus setting aside the revision order. 4. The Tribunal highlighted the assessing officer's clear finding that the assessee was not a co-operative bank, making sec. 80P(4) inapplicable. The Tribunal referenced Supreme Court judgments emphasizing that if two views are possible and the AO's view is not unsustainable in law, it cannot be deemed erroneous. As the AO's view was reasonable and legally supported, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the revision order. In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the revision order did not meet the requirements of sec. 263 of the Act, as the AO's view on the applicability of sec. 80P(4) was reasonable and not legally unsustainable. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the Ld CIT's revision order.
|
