9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 1783 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - loss on revaluation foreign currency loan claimed by the assessee - HELD THAT - AO has examined this complete profile filed by the assessee before him and taken a view for allowing the claim after verifying all the details. Now, the Assessing Officer has taken a positive view in favour of the assessee which does not mean that view is a erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and also does not mean that the Assessing Officer has not done any enquiry before allowing the claim of the assessee. The loss exclusively being revenue in nature, since it is to safeguard the potential loss is allowable as expenditure. Therefore, the view taken by the Assessing Officer is not erroneous. Thus we are of the considered view that the Assessing Officer has examined all the details filed by the assessee and fully satisfied on the proposition of loss of the assessee and allowed the same and taken the one possible view. Therefore, the ld.Pr.CIT, Surat-1 has taken a different view in the in the matter by passing the impugned order dated 26.03.2018 u/s.263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is not sustainable in the eye of law. Therefore, we cancel the impugned order passed by the ld.Pr.CIT, Surat-1 by accepting the appeal filed by the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Inquiry and position taken by the Assessing Officer (AO). 3. Nature of foreign currency fluctuation loss. 4. Principles of law regarding Section 263. 5. Examination of documentary evidence and prior decisions. Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act: The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CIT) assumed jurisdiction under Section 263 due to an alleged erroneous and prejudicial order passed by the AO. The Pr. CIT issued a show cause notice to the assessee regarding the claimed loss of ?2,21,32,403 on revaluation of foreign currency loan, which the AO had allowed as a revenue loss. The Pr. CIT argued that this loss should have been capitalized and not allowed as a revenue expenditure. 2. Inquiry and Position Taken by the AO: The assessee contended that the AO had thoroughly inquired into the claim during the assessment proceedings and had taken a justified position based on detailed examination. The AO's decision was supported by a comprehensive profile provided by the assessee, detailing the loss components and their nature. The AO's acceptance of the claim was based on this detailed verification. 3. Nature of Foreign Currency Fluctuation Loss: The assessee argued that the loss on revaluation of foreign currency loan was a revenue loss and justified under accounting standards. The loss was broken down into various components, including revaluation of outstanding foreign currency loan, forward contracts, and amortization of premiums. The assessee provided detailed explanations and cited accounting standards to support the claim that these were revenue losses and allowable expenditures. 4. Principles of Law Regarding Section 263: The assessee relied on several judicial precedents, including the Bombay High Court's decision in the case of Citibank N.A., to argue that the AO's order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The assessee contended that the AO had made a proper inquiry and that a different view by the Pr. CIT did not justify invoking Section 263. 5. Examination of Documentary Evidence and Prior Decisions: The Tribunal examined the documentary evidence and case laws presented by the assessee, which supported the claim that the AO had conducted a thorough inquiry. The Tribunal found that the AO's decision was based on a possible and reasonable view, and the Pr. CIT's different view did not render the AO's order erroneous. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the AO had made a proper inquiry and taken a justified position. The Pr. CIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was not sustainable as the AO's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Consequently, the Tribunal canceled the impugned order passed by the Pr. CIT and allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. Order: The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the order pronounced on 19-07-2019.
|
