9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 1670 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - Deduction u/s.80-IB(10) to land owners - claim of deduction u/s.80-IB(10) has been made by both the land owner, being the assessee herein and the Joint Venture Partner, being M/s.Narendra Properties Ltd. - HELD THAT - Land owner under similar circumstances would be entitled for the benefit of deduction u/s.80-IB(10) of the Act in the computation of the taxable total income. This view has been clearly expressed by the Appellate Authority and the ld. Assessing Officer has in the course of assessment followed such view expressed by the Appellate Authority, when granting the assessee benefit of deduction u/s.80-IB. Thus clearly the revision as done by the Commissioner of Income Tax u/s.263 of the Act is based exclusively on change of opinion, which is not permissible, when passing a revision u/s.263 of the Act. The Order u/s.263 is based purely on change of opinion and the same being impermissible under the provisions of the section 263, the order dated 29/03/2017 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax u/s.263 of the Act in the case of the assessee herein stands quashed. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
Appeal against Order u/s.263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2009-10. Analysis: The appeal was filed by the assessee against the Order passed u/s.263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-3, Chennai. The assessee, a partnership firm engaged in Real Estate and Construction, had filed its return of income for the assessment year 2009-10 claiming deduction u/s.80-IB of the Act. The original assessment u/s.143(3) was completed on 29.12.2011, subject to a revision u/s.263 in 2014 directing a fresh assessment. Another revision was initiated in 2016, questioning the deduction u/s.80-IB. The assessee contended that the issues had been considered in previous assessments and the revision was based on a change of opinion, which was impermissible. The Commissioner directed a fresh re-assessment, disregarding the assessee's submissions. The Revenue supported the Principal Commissioner's order, arguing that it was within the powers to revise any order u/s.263 if found erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue's interests. The Tribunal analyzed the submissions and highlighted that for an order to be revised, it must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. The Tribunal disagreed with the Revenue's view that any order granting deduction to an assessee was prejudicial. It emphasized that the error in the order needed to be specifically pointed out. In this case, the revision was solely based on a change of opinion, which was impermissible under section 263. The Tribunal found that the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax u/s.263 was based purely on a change of opinion and quashed the order. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee. The order was pronounced on 8th October 2018 in Chennai.
|
