2016 (9) TMI 1604 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 by CIT - AO did not make any disallowance out of deduction under section 80-IC of the Act on proportionate basis - HELD THAT - We find that the AO during assessment proceedings has duly called for information for job work done from outside and assessee had filed complete details as is apparent from PB-4, 8 11 and therefore, the AO did not make any disallowance out of deduction under section 80-IC of the Act on proportionate basis, as he must be in the knowledge that in earlier years similar issue had been decided in favour of the assessee, by the Amritsar Bench of the Tribunal 2011 (6) TMI 865 - ITAT AMRITSAR CIT has nowhere held the order to be erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against order of the ld. Pri. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana, relating to assessment year 2012-13 passed under section 263 of the Act.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, an assessee company with three manufacturing units, appealed against the ld. Pri. Commissioner's order related to the disallowance of a proportionate claim under section 80-IC for job work done from outside. The appellant argued that the AO had not disallowed the claim based on previous favorable decisions by the ITAT, Amritsar Bench, for similar issues. The appellant contended that the AO's decision was justified, and the mere filing of an appeal by the Department did not invalidate the Tribunal's decision. The appellant cited legal precedents to support this argument.

2. The ld. DR supported the orders of the lower Authorities, while the Tribunal thoroughly examined the material on record. The Tribunal found that the AO had appropriately sought information on the job work done from outside, and the appellant had provided complete details. The Tribunal noted that a previous ITAT decision favored the appellant's position, and the AO was bound to follow it. The ld. Pri. Commissioner's objection regarding the Department's appeal to the High Court was considered, but it was highlighted that the Pri. Commissioner did not find the order erroneous or prejudicial to Revenue's interests.

3. Citing legal precedents, including a decision by the Hon'ble Orissa High Court and a Delhi Tribunal case, the Tribunal concluded that the assumption of jurisdiction by the ld. Pri. Commissioner was not justified. Relying on judicial precedents and the facts of the case, the Tribunal canceled the order passed under section 263 of the Act. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed, and the order was pronounced in open court on 15/09/2016.