2016 (11) TMI 1057 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - CIT observed that no enquiry at all was conducted by the AO - AO computed the Capital Gains u/s 50B - Held that - In the present case the assessee had submitted a detailed explanation along with relevant details assessment order was passed by the AO, prima facie on being satisfied with the explanation of the assessee. In the present case the learned CIT has passed the order u/s 263 by concluding that the order passed by the AO is erroneous to the interests of the Revenue without providing a fulcrum for such a claim or justify such a claim has been made. As noticed from the facts of the present case that simply because the AO in his order did not make an elaborate discussion or did not call for any further details, that by itself cannot be a ground to hold the order passed by the AO to be Erroneous for lack of enquiry. From a careful perusal of the record, we have also noticed that enquiries were conducted by the AO and, therefore, in such a circumstance, the learned CIT cannot be allowed to wrongly assume jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act under the Guise of AO s failure to conduct any further enquiry. The learned CIT has passed his order on this issue on the ground that no enquiry at all was conducted by the AO. After perusal of the record, we noticed that the stand taken by CIT is incorrect. The records of assessment establishes that an enquiry was conducted by the AO and the assessee had also participated and filed reply before the AO on this issue. We are of the considered view that in the present case on the issue of computation of capital gains and depreciation, the AO has conducted enquiries and the assessee had also submitted the detailed explanations and evidently the claim was allowed by the AO on being satisfied with the explanations of the assessee. Therefore, the learned CIT in the present case has wrongly assumed jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act on all the issues raised by the assessee - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality and jurisdiction of the CIT's order under Section 263.
2. Alleged errors in the AO's computation of capital gains under Section 50B.
3. Reduction of net worth by depreciation while computing capital gains.
4. Applicability of the Warner Lambert India Pvt. Ltd. decision to the appellant's case.
5. Interpretation of Sections 50B and 43(6) of the Act.
6. Directions regarding reduction under Section 10A.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality and Jurisdiction of the CIT's Order under Section 263:
The appellant contested the CIT's order dated 18th March 2013, arguing it was illegal, without jurisdiction, and contrary to the principles of natural justice. The appellant cited the Supreme Court's decision in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, emphasizing that an order can only be revised under Section 263 if it is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, noting that the AO had conducted proper inquiries and was satisfied with the appellant's explanations. Therefore, the CIT's order under Section 263 was deemed unwarranted.

2. Alleged Errors in the AO's Computation of Capital Gains under Section 50B:
The CIT alleged that the AO's computation of capital gains under Section 50B was erroneous. Specifically, the CIT argued that the AO failed to reduce the net worth by the current year's depreciation. The appellant countered that the computation was done correctly, in accordance with the provisions of Sections 50B, 43(6)(c), and 32. The Tribunal found that the AO had made specific inquiries and was satisfied with the appellant's detailed explanations, thus rejecting the CIT's claim of error.

3. Reduction of Net Worth by Depreciation While Computing Capital Gains:
The CIT directed that the net worth should be reduced by depreciation of ?19,968,604 while computing capital gains under Section 50B. The appellant argued that the net worth was computed correctly without reducing the current year's depreciation, based on the provisions of the Act. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, stating that the AO had conducted proper inquiries and accepted the appellant's computation. Therefore, the CIT's direction was deemed incorrect.

4. Applicability of the Warner Lambert India Pvt. Ltd. Decision to the Appellant's Case:
The CIT alleged that the appellant's case was identical to the Warner Lambert India Pvt. Ltd. case and that the AO erred in not applying this decision. The appellant argued that the Warner Lambert decision was distinguishable and, in any event, erroneous. The Tribunal found that the AO had considered the relevant provisions and was satisfied with the appellant's explanations, making the CIT's reliance on the Warner Lambert case misplaced.

5. Interpretation of Sections 50B and 43(6) of the Act:
The CIT erred in his interpretation of Sections 50B and 43(6) of the Act, according to the appellant. The appellant provided a detailed explanation of how the net worth should be computed, emphasizing that the WDV should be adjusted without considering the current year's depreciation. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's interpretation, noting that the AO had made inquiries and accepted the appellant's computation, thus rejecting the CIT's interpretation.

6. Directions Regarding Reduction under Section 10A:
The CIT's directions regarding the reduction under Section 10A were also contested by the appellant, arguing they were illegal and contrary to the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal found that the AO had made specific inquiries and was satisfied with the appellant's explanations regarding the deduction under Section 10A. Therefore, the CIT's directions were deemed incorrect.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the AO had conducted proper inquiries, and the appellant had provided detailed explanations. The CIT's order under Section 263 was found to be unwarranted and based on incorrect assumptions. The Tribunal canceled the CIT's order and restored the AO's assessment order for the assessment year 2007-08. The appeal filed by the appellant was allowed.