9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (10) TMI 361 - HC - Income TaxDeduction of profits derived from Export business - Partial claim u/s 80HHC disallowed Held that - Mere disallowance of a part of the claim made in a return may not vitiate the exercise u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act the AO is placed under obligation to ascertain the views of the assessee by issuing a notice u/s 143(2) of the Act once the claim becomes debatable or doubtful - the AO may or may not agree with the remarks or explanation that may be offered by the assessee in response to the notice - The procedure under law must be followed before any part of such claim is disallowed - a claim u/s 80HHC of the Act is surrounded by several uncertainties and debatable questions of fact and law - Before the AO disallowed a part of the claim made under that provision he ought to have issued notice u/s 143(2) of the Act - There cannot be any hard and fast rule as to when a particular aspect can be treated as debatable and when not thus the order of the Tribunal is upheld Decided against revenue.
Issues:
Assessment under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for deduction under Section 80HHC - Disallowance of part of the claim - Rectification application under Section 154 - Appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - Appeal before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Further appeal under Section 260A of the Act by the Revenue. Analysis: The respondent, an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961, submitted returns for the assessment year 1996-97 claiming a deduction under Section 80HHC for profits derived from Export business. The Assessing Officer processed the return under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act and disallowed part of the claim under Section 80HHC. The respondent filed a rectification application under Section 154, which was rejected, leading to an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) where the claim was allowed. The Revenue then filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which was dismissed, resulting in a further appeal under Section 260A of the Act by the Revenue. The procedure under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act allows for non-debatable acceptance of returns by the Assessing Officer, providing a finality to the assessment. However, if there are doubts regarding the accuracy of figures or claims, the Assessing Officer must issue a notice under sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 143 for further assessment. In this case, the Assessing Officer disallowed part of the claim under Section 80HHC without issuing a notice under Section 143(3) of the Act, which is impermissible when there are disagreements or controversies regarding the details of the returns. The Kerala High Court judgment in Ambathi Enterprises v. Commissioner of Income Tax provides guidance that prima facie adjustments under Section 143(1)(a) are acceptable within stipulated parameters, but debatable claims must be addressed through proper procedures. A claim under Section 80HHC involves uncertainties and debatable questions, necessitating the Assessing Officer to issue a notice under sub-section (2) of Section 143 before disallowing any part of the claim. The lack of settled principles or debatable aspects in the disallowed claim indicates a procedural error by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal aligns with the requirement for proper assessment procedures. In conclusion, the appeal is dismissed, and no costs are awarded. The miscellaneous petition filed in this appeal is also disposed of accordingly.
|
