9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (12) TMI 707 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - Commissioner has held that the exemption under section 80IB will not admissible on the duty draw back income and interest income because it was not derived from undertaking - Held that - In the present case, CIT issued notice after the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty Shoes (2009 (8) TMI 63 - SUPREME COURT ) construed the meaning of expression profits derived from industrial undertaking . The Hon ble Supreme Court has explained the meaning of this expression and held that expression derived has a narrow connotation. The duty draw back has not first degree nexus with the industrial undertaking. These are being received as incentive benefits under the incentive provisions. Thus, such amount cannot be termed as derived from industrial undertaking , and not eligible for deduction. On due consideration of all these facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax has appreciated the facts in right perspective while taking cognizance under section 263 of the Income Tax Act. - Decided against assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) taking cognizance under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Admissibility of deduction under Section 80IB on duty drawback and interest income. 3. Impact of subsequent Supreme Court decisions on previously settled assessments. 4. Jurisdiction of CIT under Section 263 when the issue has merged with the order of the CIT(A). Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of CIT Taking Cognizance Under Section 263: The primary grievance of the assessee was that the CIT erred in taking cognizance under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act and revising the assessment order dated 26.12.2008. The CIT believed that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, as it included items (duty drawback and interest income) not eligible for deduction under Section 80IB. The Tribunal upheld the CIT's action, noting that the CIT must record satisfaction that the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The Tribunal emphasized that the CIT's power under Section 263 includes examining records and forming an opinion that the AO's order is erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue, and then issuing a show cause notice to the assessee. 2. Admissibility of Deduction Under Section 80IB: The assessee claimed a deduction under Section 80IB, including duty drawback and interest income. The CIT held that these items were not derived from the industrial undertaking and thus not eligible for deduction under Section 80IB. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Liberty India Vs. CIT, which clarified that duty drawback and DEPB do not qualify as profits derived from industrial undertakings. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT's exclusion of these items from the deduction calculation. 3. Impact of Subsequent Supreme Court Decisions: The Tribunal addressed the assessee's argument that the AO's decision, based on the prevailing jurisdictional High Court ruling, should not be considered erroneous due to a subsequent Supreme Court decision. The Tribunal rejected this argument, stating that the Supreme Court's interpretation of a statute is a declaration of what the law has always been. Therefore, the AO's order, which included duty drawback in the Section 80IB deduction, was erroneous as per the Supreme Court's interpretation. 4. Jurisdiction of CIT Under Section 263: The assessee argued that the issue had merged with the order of the CIT(A), and thus the CIT could not take cognizance under Section 263. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had decided the appeal before the Supreme Court's decision in Liberty India, and therefore, the CIT(A) did not consider the issue in light of the Supreme Court's interpretation. The Tribunal held that the CIT could exercise jurisdiction under Section 263 to correct the assessment order in accordance with the Supreme Court's decision. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed both appeals of the assessee, upholding the CIT's action under Section 263 and confirming the disallowance of the deduction under Section 80IB on duty drawback and interest income. The Tribunal emphasized that the CIT's revision powers were correctly exercised, and the subsequent Supreme Court decision justified the revision of the assessment order.
|
