2016 (1) TMI 602 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of revision u/s 263 - Held that - Assessing Officer has appreciated the facts as per facts before him. Improper appreciation of facts by Assessing Officer cannot be held proper ground for holding the order of Assessing Officer erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of revenue under the provisions of Section 263. Provisions of 263 of Act can be invoked. In case of no enquiry on issue by Assessing Officer. The improper or less enquiry cannot be valid basis of invoking provisions 263 of Act. Inquiry on particular issue is subject outlook of concern Asessing Officer. Subject outlook may vary person to person. In view of above discussion, order of CIT cannot be sustained same is quashed. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the assessment order passed under section 143(3) was prejudicial and erroneous to the interest of revenue, justifying the invocation of section 263?
2. Whether the disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D was correctly determined by the Assessing Officer?
3. Whether the interest expenditure of Rs. 57,80,070/- should have been considered for disallowance under section 14A?

Analysis:

Issue 1: The Appellate Tribunal considered whether the assessment order passed under section 143(3) was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, leading to the invocation of section 263. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had not applied his mind to the issue of interest expenditure of Rs. 57,80,070/- not being considered for disallowance under section 14A. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT's view that the assessment was made without proper inquiry, rendering it erroneous. Consequently, the order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration.

Issue 2: The Tribunal evaluated the correctness of the disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D as determined by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer initially worked out the disallowance at Rs. 2,80,272/- but later observed that the interest expenditure of Rs. 57,80,070/- was not considered for disallowance. Upon considering the submissions made by the assessee regarding the nature of the interest paid, the Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had not properly applied his mind to the issue. Citing a relevant case law, the Tribunal held that the lack of proper appreciation of facts by the Assessing Officer cannot be a valid ground for invoking section 263. Consequently, the order of the CIT setting aside the assessment was quashed.

Issue 3: The Tribunal examined whether the interest expenditure of Rs. 57,80,070/- should have been considered for disallowance under section 14A. The assessee contended that since the shares purchased through a broker were treated as stock in trade and the profit was duly reflected in the profit and loss account, section 14A should not apply to the interest paid on these shares. The Tribunal noted that all details were submitted before the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. Ultimately, the Tribunal found in favor of the assessee, holding that the order of the CIT was not justified in deleting the Assessing Officer's order. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed, and the order of the CIT was quashed.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, emphasizing the importance of proper inquiry and application of mind by the Assessing Officer in determining disallowances under section 14A.