9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (1) TMI 1388 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - Deduction u/s 80-IC denied - Whether earning of interest is directly linked to the business income? - Held that - the conclusion arrived at by the CIT, Dehradun cannot be faulted with. It is evident from the record that the claim allowed by the AO was not allowable in law. The issue on facts is well settled by a plethora of decisions right from the decision of the Apex Court in the Cambay Electric Supply Indstl. Co. Ltd. vs CIT 1978 (4) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT wherein their Lordships have brought out in detail the differences in the meaning of attributable to and derived from Commissioner cannot initiate proceedings with a view to start fishing and roving inquiries in matters or orders which are already concluded. However it is equally well settled that the order cannot be termed as erroneous unless it is not in accordance with law. The section does not visualize a case of substituting the judgement of the Commissioner for that and the Assessing Officer who passes the order unless the decision is held to be erroneous. The Jurisdictional pre-condition stipulate that the Commissioner of Income Tax must come to the conclusion that the order is erroneous and is unsustainable in law. It is well settled that the order u/s 263 can be termed erroneous only if the Commissioner holds and decides that it is contrary to law. In the facts of the present case the Commissioner in the exercise his powers u/s 263 has come to the conclusion that the assessment order dt. 16.11.2010 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue based on the legal position as set out in his order which has not been distinguished on facts by the Ld. AR. - Decided against assessee
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of deduction under Section 80-IC for interest income. 2. Justification for cancellation of the original assessment order and direction for reassessment. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance of Deduction under Section 80-IC for Interest Income: The assessee claimed deduction under Section 80-IC of the Income Tax Act for the interest income earned from Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) pledged as security to obtain a bank guarantee. The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT), Dehradun, disallowed this deduction, noting that the interest income of Rs. 22,29,129 was not directly linked to the manufacturing activity and thus not eligible for deduction under Section 80-IC. The CIT issued a show-cause notice to the assessee, who argued that the interest income was directly connected to the business operations as the FDRs were necessary for furnishing bank guarantees required by the Uttaranchal Power Corporation Ltd. The assessee relied on several judicial decisions, including CIT vs Paramount Premises (P.) Ltd., CIT vs Arvind Constructions Co. Ltd., and others, to support their claim. However, the CIT found these decisions distinguishable on facts and held that the interest income did not qualify for deduction under Section 80-IC. The CIT relied on Supreme Court decisions such as CIT vs Sterling Foods, Liberty India vs CIT, and others, which clarified the distinction between income "derived from" and "attributable to" the business activity. The Tribunal concurred with the CIT's view, stating that the interest income was not derived from the manufacturing activity and thus not eligible for the deduction under Section 80-IC. 2. Justification for Cancellation of the Original Assessment Order and Direction for Reassessment: The CIT exercised revisionary powers under Section 263, cancelling the original assessment order dated 16.11.2010, which had allowed the deduction under Section 80-IC. The CIT directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to reassess the matter, noting that the original assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing that the AO's failure to properly investigate and verify the facts constituted an error. The Tribunal reinforced that the AO is both an investigator and an adjudicator and must conduct thorough inquiries to ascertain the truth of the facts stated in the return. The Tribunal highlighted that the CIT's revisionary powers aim to correct errors that are prejudicial to the Revenue's interests. The Tribunal agreed that the AO's original decision was unsustainable in law, as it failed to align with the legal position established by the Supreme Court in cases such as Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd. vs CIT and others. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT's direction for reassessment was justified, as the original assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the CIT's decision to disallow the deduction under Section 80-IC for the interest income and to cancel the original assessment order, directing reassessment. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of thorough investigation and verification by the AO and the necessity of aligning assessment decisions with established legal principles.
|
