9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (8) TMI 530 - HC - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - grant of benefit under Section 80 HHC - Held that - It appears from the decision of the Apex Court in Max India Ltd. (2007 (11) TMI 12 - Supreme Court of India) that the Assessing Officer had taken one of the two views of the word profit as occurring in Section 80 HHC of the Act. Therefore, it was in that context that the Apex Court held that Section 263 of the Act would not be attracted particularly when the view of the Assessing Officer was found to be a view taken by various authorities under the Act. In passing we may point out that as recorded in the statement of case, the Tribunal held the exercise of powers under Section 263 of the Act by the Commissioner of Income Tax to be bad in law as the view of the Assessing Officer was in line with the decision of the Tribunal in Mysore Exports Ltd. (1995 (5) TMI 45 - ITAT BANGALORE). It is relevant to note that on the date when the Commissioner of Income Tax exercised his powers under Section 263 of the Act on 31.03.1995, the decision of the Tribunal in Mysore Exports Ltd. (1995 (5) TMI 45 - ITAT BANGALORE) was not available before him as it was rendered on 19.05.1995. Therefore, we are of the view that the Assessing Officer cannot abdicate his responsibility of examining the claim for deduction before allowing it. Absence of examination of the claim made by the assessee while passing an assessment order and allowing the claim made, would render the order of the Assessing Officer erroneous and coupled with the fact that in this case it is admitting prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, exercise of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act by the Commissioner of Income Tax proper and valid. Decided in favour of the appellant-revenue and against the respondent-assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Justification of the Tribunal in setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether the assessment order in question fell within the purview of Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Issue 1: Justification of the Tribunal in Setting Aside the Order of the CIT under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 The primary issue revolves around whether the Tribunal was justified in law in setting aside the CIT's order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT had set aside the assessment order on the grounds that the Assessing Officer (AO) allowed a deduction under Section 80HHC without proper verification and consideration of relevant provisions, making the order "erroneous in so far as it was prejudicial to the interests of the revenue." The Tribunal, however, relied on precedents such as the case of DCIT vs. Mysore Exports Ltd., and CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd., to conclude that the CIT could not revise the order merely because he disagreed with the AO’s conclusions. The Tribunal held that the AO’s view was a possible view and thus could not be revised under Section 263. Issue 2: Whether the Assessment Order Fell Within the Purview of Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 The CIT observed that the AO did not consider the unabsorbed depreciation and investment allowance under Sections 32(2) and 32A(3) while allowing the deduction under Section 80HHC. Additionally, the AO failed to include other revenue receipts in the total turnover for computing the deduction and did not apply his mind to the "turnover" on which the 80HHC deduction was to be determined. The CIT also noted discrepancies in the treatment of interest income from Malaysia under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and Malaysia. The Tribunal, however, set aside the CIT’s order, noting that the AO had applied his mind and examined the claim for deduction under Section 80HHC, as evidenced by the fact that the claim granted was less than what was claimed by the assessee. The Tribunal also noted that the issue of deduction under Section 80HHC was debatable and two views were inherently possible, thus the CIT could not invoke jurisdiction under Section 263. Analysis and Judgment: 1. Application of Mind by the AO: - The Tribunal’s decision was based on the premise that the AO had applied his mind and examined the claim for deduction under Section 80HHC. This was inferred from the fact that the deduction allowed was less than what was claimed. - However, the High Court pointed out that there was no evidence of such examination in the statement of the case. The mere use of the word "allowed" does not imply due verification or examination. 2. Jurisdiction under Section 263: - The High Court emphasized that the power of revision under Section 263 can be exercised only if the AO’s order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Non-enquiry before allowing a claim makes the AO’s order erroneous in law. - The High Court noted that the AO’s failure to examine the claim under Section 80HHC before allowing it rendered the order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue’s interests, thus justifying the CIT’s exercise of jurisdiction under Section 263. 3. Debatable Issues and Two Views: - The High Court acknowledged that while the issue of deduction under Section 80HHC was debatable, this did not absolve the AO from examining the claim. The mere existence of two possible views does not justify non-examination of the claim. - The Tribunal’s reliance on the decision in Mysore Exports Ltd. was misplaced as the decision was rendered after the CIT exercised his powers under Section 263. 4. Interest Income from Malaysia: - The issue regarding the charging of tax on interest income earned in Malaysia under the DTAA was not pressed by the Revenue, thus the High Court did not render an opinion on this aspect. Conclusion: The High Court concluded that the AO’s failure to examine the claim for deduction under Section 80HHC before allowing it rendered the order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue’s interests. Therefore, the CIT’s exercise of jurisdiction under Section 263 was valid. Both questions were answered in the negative, in favor of the appellant-revenue and against the respondent-assessee. The reference was disposed of with no order as to costs.
|
