9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (5) TMI 1001 - AT - Income TaxJurisdiction of the CIT u/s 263 of the Act Held that - After enquiry conducted by the CIT, he has recorded a bald statement that he was not satisfied with the explanation offered by the assessee - During the revisional proceedings the assessee has brought to the notice of the CIT, that the issue was inquired into by the AO and it has filed the said reply before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings, so the reply submitted to the AO must have been part of the assessment records - the AO had conducted enquiry into this issue - it is not a case wherein, no enquiry whatsoever was carried out by the Assessing Officer - in the original assessment order there is no mention of this claim at all. The CIT after examining the agreements and the explanations furnished before him ought to have recorded reason to demonstrate that the view taken by the AO is incorrect, and unsustainable in law and consequently ought to have recorded a finding that the order of the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue - CIT did not record any reason to hold that the implied view of the AO is unsustainable in law and therefore erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, which exercise has not been found to have taken place - the order of the CIT without recording the reason to demonstrate that the view of the AO after enquiry as incorrect, unsustainable in law and consequently ought to have recorded a finding that the implied view of the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, which is absent in the order and therefore vitiates the revisional order thus, the order of the CIT is set aside Decided in favour of Assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Non-charging of interest on loans to overseas subsidiary. 3. Treatment of acquisition expenses. 4. Claim of deduction under Section 80IC of the Income Tax Act. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act: The appeal challenges the jurisdiction assumed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant contended that the CIT erred in assuming jurisdiction without establishing that the underlying assessment order was unsustainable. The appellant cited the case of DLF Limited, arguing that the CIT must demonstrate that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The appellant also referenced the Sun Beam case, asserting that the CIT failed to establish that the case involved a total lack of enquiry justifying the invocation of Section 263. 2. Non-charging of Interest on Loans to Overseas Subsidiary: The CIT noted that the assessee had given a loan of Rs. 2,40,71,000/- to its overseas subsidiary without charging interest, while interest was paid on borrowed funds. The CIT held that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not investigate whether the assessee diverted its interest-bearing funds towards interest-free loans and advances. The CIT directed the AO to reframe this issue after a detailed enquiry. The appellant argued that the loan was part of the acquisition cost and was given on the same terms as extended by the previous promoter, thus no interest was chargeable. The tribunal found that the AO had conducted an enquiry and accepted the explanation, and the CIT did not demonstrate that the AO's view was incorrect or unsustainable in law. 3. Treatment of Acquisition Expenses: The CIT observed that the assessee incurred expenses towards acquiring two Swiss companies, which the AO amortized over five years. The CIT believed these expenses should have been capitalized as they provided enduring benefits. However, the CIT refrained from deciding this issue, as it was covered by a previous appellate order, thus merging with the order of the CIT(A) as per Section 263(1) Explanation (d). 4. Claim of Deduction under Section 80IC of the Income Tax Act: The CIT noted that the AO allowed a deduction under Section 80IC without conducting enquiries to ascertain if the assessee fulfilled all conditions. The CIT found that in the subsequent assessment year, the AO conducted a detailed investigation and allowed the deduction. The tribunal acknowledged that no enquiry was conducted by the AO in the original assessment order regarding this claim, justifying the CIT's invocation of revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 for this issue. Conclusion: The tribunal concluded that the CIT's order was justified in part, specifically regarding the lack of enquiry on the Section 80IC deduction claim. However, for the issue of non-charging of interest on loans to the subsidiary, the tribunal found that the AO had conducted an enquiry and accepted the explanation provided by the assessee. The CIT did not provide sufficient reasons to demonstrate that the AO's view was incorrect or unsustainable. Therefore, the tribunal set aside the CIT's order on this issue and allowed the appeal. Final Judgment: The appeal was allowed, and the order pronounced in the open court on 15.05.2014.
|
