2017 (8) TMI 960 - HC - Income Tax

Claim of interest and administrative charges under section 57(iii) - claim of interest expenditure in respect of loans taken from various banks - revision petition u/s 263 - Held that - Section 57(iii) of the Act allows deduction while computing the income chargeable under the head Income from other sources , any other expenditure laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income. It was in this context the Assessing Officer had accepted the assessee s contention that if the investment is treated as not having been expended in the assessee s business in USA and therefore, wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business, the same should be treated as one for earning income from other sources. The view adopted by the Assessing Officer was after proper scrutiny of relevant facts and clearly a plausible view and therefore, not open to revision at the hands of the Commissioner. The Supreme Court in case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd.(2000 (2) TMI 10 - SUPREME Court) which has been referred to time and again, held and observed that the order of assessment would be open to revision provided twin conditions of same being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue are satisfied. It is also well settled that if after proper inquiries, the Assessing Officer has adopted a view which is a plausible one, the view would not be open to revision by the Commissioner. The additional contention of the petitioner of the very jurisdiction of the Commissioner to revise an order of assessment passed after the draft order is placed before DRP in terms of section 144C of the Act is an interesting contention. However, we do not find it necessary in the present petition to enter into such an issue, since on facts we find that the Commissioner could not have invoked revisional powers.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the notice issued by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax for revision of the assessment order.
2. Treatment of interest expenditure on loans used for investment in a subsidiary company.
3. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner to revise an assessment order passed after consideration by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Notice for Revision:
The petitioner challenged the notice dated 8.3.2016 issued by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, which sought to revise the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) read with section 144C of the Income Tax Act on 30.1.2014. The petitioner argued that the Assessing Officer had taken a view after proper inquiries, which was a plausible view, and therefore, the decision was not open to revision by the Commissioner. The court agreed, stating that the view adopted by the Assessing Officer was after proper scrutiny of relevant facts and was clearly a plausible view, thus not open to revision at the hands of the Commissioner.

2. Treatment of Interest Expenditure:
The petitioner, a company engaged in the manufacture and sale of printing inks, had claimed interest expenditure on loans taken for investment in the preferred stock of its subsidiary company in the USA. The Assessing Officer initially disallowed this expenditure as a business expense but accepted the alternative contention that it could be allowed under section 57(iii) of the Act. The Commissioner, however, in the impugned notice, argued that the primary motive of incurring the expenditure should be directly to earn income falling under the head "Income from other sources," which was not satisfied in this case. The court noted that the Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Prasad Moody had held that deduction under section 57(iii) was not conditional upon actually making or earning income. The Assessing Officer's decision to allow the expenditure under section 57(iii) was thus upheld.

3. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner:
The petitioner also contended that the order of assessment was passed after the draft order was placed along with the petitioner’s objections before the DRP, and therefore, the final order of assessment was not open to revision by the Commissioner. The court found this to be an interesting contention but did not find it necessary to enter into this issue, as it had already concluded that the Commissioner could not have invoked revisional powers on the facts of the case.

Conclusion:
The court set aside the notice dated 8.3.2016, allowing and disposing of the petition. The view adopted by the Assessing Officer was found to be a plausible one after proper scrutiny, and therefore, the Commissioner’s revision was not justified. The court did not delve into the jurisdictional issue regarding the DRP's consideration, as it was unnecessary given the resolution of the primary issue.