9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 1627 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - claim u/s 80IC - HELD THAT - Pr. CIT has considered all the contentions of the assessee and thereafter rightly come to the conclusion that the AO failed to consider the fact that whether the assessee is entitled for claim u/s 80IC or not in respect of the products which do not come under the ambit of Fourteenth Schedule. It can be seen that the Pr. CIT has properly invoked the provisions of Section 263 and there is no procedural lapse on the part of the Pr. CIT. In fact, the AO did not made any inquiry and there is no mention of the same in the Assessment Order itself which proves that the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been done by the AO before allowing the claim u/s 80IC of the Act. Thus, it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and there is loss of revenue. CIT after issuing the Show Cause Notice u/s 263 of the Act given ample opportunity to the Assessee for explanation and dealt with the reply/details filed by the assessee in proper manner. Thus, proper opportunity was given by the Pr. CIT to the assessee during the proceedings u/s 263. In the present case the Assessing Officer has not properly adjudicated the issue of claim u/s 80IC before allowing the same to the assessee company, therefore, the Pr. CIT has rightly invoked Section 263 of the Act and passed the order. Therefore, the Order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax is just and proper. There is no need to interfere with the same. The appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) under Section 263. 2. Validity of the deduction claimed under Section 80IC of the Income Tax Act. 3. Examination and verification of the assessee's claim by the Assessing Officer. 4. Applicability of case laws relied upon by the PCIT. 5. Comparison of facts between Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10 and AY 2011-12. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) under Section 263: The assessee challenged the jurisdiction of the PCIT under Section 263, arguing that the order dated 29.03.2016 was "grossly without jurisdiction, bad in law, unlawful and invalid." The assessee contended that the necessary statutory preconditions for invoking jurisdiction were not satisfied. The Tribunal, however, upheld the PCIT's jurisdiction, noting that the PCIT had satisfied both conditions of the order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as required under Section 263. 2. Validity of the Deduction Claimed under Section 80IC of the Income Tax Act: The assessee claimed a deduction under Section 80IC for its unit at Rudrapur, which was disputed by the PCIT. The PCIT observed that the assessee was not manufacturing Pharma products as specified in Schedule XIV, which is a prerequisite for the deduction under Section 80IC. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's products included a variety of confectionery items not covered under the specified schedule for deduction, thus supporting the PCIT's view. 3. Examination and Verification of the Assessee's Claim by the Assessing Officer: The PCIT found that the Assessing Officer had not made adequate inquiries or verification regarding the deduction claim under Section 80IC. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the Assessing Officer did not properly verify the allocation of expenses between the different units of the assessee and failed to ascertain the correct income derived by the Rudrapur unit. The lack of proper inquiry and verification rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 4. Applicability of Case Laws Relied Upon by the PCIT: The PCIT relied on several case laws, including the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (243 ITR 83)(SC) and Deniel Merchants Private Limited & Anr. Vs. Income Tax Officer (Appeal No. 2396/2017). The Tribunal found these case laws applicable, supporting the PCIT's decision to invoke Section 263. The Supreme Court had upheld the principle that an order is erroneous if it is passed without proper inquiry, as was the case here. 5. Comparison of Facts Between AY 2009-10 and AY 2011-12: The PCIT observed that the facts of AY 2009-10 were similar to those of AY 2011-12, where the deduction under Section 80IC was disallowed. The Tribunal noted that the PCIT had rightly considered the findings from AY 2011-12, where the assessee did not manufacture the specified Pharma products, and applied the same reasoning to AY 2009-10. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's argument that the facts were different for the two years. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the PCIT's order under Section 263, agreeing that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue due to the lack of proper inquiry and verification by the Assessing Officer. The appeal of the assessee was dismissed, and the Tribunal found no procedural lapses on the part of the PCIT. The decision was pronounced in the open court on 11th January 2019.
|
