9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (7) TMI 904 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - claim of the assessee on account of lease rental to be disallowed as per CIT(A) - Held that - Considering the facts of the present case, it is noticed that the AO before allowing the claim of the assessee on account of lease rental issued a questionnaire along with notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act. The assessee furnished the requisite details and evidences to the AO, who on being satisfied allowed the claim of the assessee. It is also noticed that for AY 2006-07 the similar issue was before the DRP, who also directed the AO to delete the similar disallowance. In the present case, the Ld. CIT(A) on the similar issue for AYs 2004-05 and 2005-06 has deleted the additions made by AO. Therefore, it can be said that the view taken by AO was one of the possible view so it cannot be said that the assessment order passed by him was erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The view taken by the AO was one of the possible view, therefore, the assessment order passed by him for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2007-08 was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Moreover, the Ld. CIT in the impugned order has simply stated that the assessee furnished the written reply. However, he has not discussed the contents of the said reply and also did not bring on record how and in what manner the assessment order passed by AO was erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue, he simply directed the AO to reexamine the issue after calling the lease documents and examining the same, which the AO had already considered and examined while passing the assessment order. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the order passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Allowability of lease rentals for motor cars as revenue expenditure. 3. Validity of the assessment order dated 07.04.2011 under Section 143(3)/144C. 4. Jurisdiction and power of the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) under Section 263. 5. Consistency with previous years' assessments and decisions by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) and CIT(A). Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the order passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The primary issue in this appeal is whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) was justified in invoking Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT considered the assessment order dated 07.04.2011 to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue because the Assessing Officer (AO) allowed a deduction of Rs. 4,01,65,333/- on account of lease rental paid for motor cars, which the CIT believed should be treated as capital expenditure. 2. Allowability of lease rentals for motor cars as revenue expenditure: The assessee argued that the lease rentals paid for motor cars should be treated as revenue expenditure. The AO had issued a notice under Section 142(1) and examined the details provided by the assessee before allowing the claim. The assessee also cited previous years' assessments where similar disallowances were deleted by CIT(A) and the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The CIT, however, did not find merit in the assessee's submissions and directed the AO to re-examine the lease documents. 3. Validity of the assessment order dated 07.04.2011 under Section 143(3)/144C: The assessee contended that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The AO had followed due process by issuing a questionnaire and examining the relevant details before allowing the lease rental claim. The assessee's position was supported by decisions in previous years where similar issues were resolved in favor of the assessee. 4. Jurisdiction and power of the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) under Section 263: The Tribunal emphasized that for an order to be revised under Section 263, it must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The CIT's power is not unfettered and must be exercised within the bounds of the law, respecting the principles of fairness and natural justice. The Tribunal noted that the AO had applied his mind and followed a permissible course of action, making the assessment order neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the Revenue. 5. Consistency with previous years' assessments and decisions by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) and CIT(A): The Tribunal observed that in previous years, similar disallowances were deleted by CIT(A) and the DRP. The AO's decision to allow the lease rental claim was consistent with these earlier rulings. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's decision in CIT Vs. Max India Ltd., which held that when two views are possible, and the AO adopts one view, it cannot be considered erroneous or prejudicial to the Revenue unless the view is unsustainable in law. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the CIT was not justified in setting aside the assessment order dated 07.04.2011. The AO had followed due process, and the assessment order was consistent with previous years' decisions. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and restored the assessment order dated 07.04.2011. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the order was pronounced in the open court on 23.01.2015.
|
