2018 (9) TMI 1467 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - granting deduction u/s. 80IA - Held that - As brought to the notice of the AO that the CIT(A) had decided this issue in favour of the assessee for AY 2008-09 and 2010-11 and in the case of the assessee s sister concern namely, M/s Selvel Advertising Pvt. Ltd. and also that the Tribunal s decision on this issue in assessee s own case for AY 2005-06 onwards which was held in favour of assessee. Since the issue has been enquired into by the AO and after taking note of the submissions, documents and decision given by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal in assessee s own case on the very issue regarding justification for claiming deduction u/s. 80IA, according to us, the AO has taken a view which is a plausible view and which action of the AO cannot be termed as erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. It was brought to our notice by the Ld. AR that the Tribunal s decision in assessee s own case on the issue from AYs 2005-06 to 2011-12 is in favour of the assessee and the similar issue raised in the case of assessee s sister concern M/s. Selvel Advertising Pvt. Ltd. wherein the Tribunal for AY 2004-05. Therefore, the issue is no longer res integra and the view taken by the AO is as per the Tribunal as well as the Hon ble High Court s order, therefore, the action of the AO cannot be held to be erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue and, therefore, we hold that Ld. Pr. CIT lacks revisional jurisdiction to interfere on this issue and therefore erred in doing so. Depreciation of hoarding structure @ 100% - CIT observed that the said structure was used for less than 180 days and, therefore, the assessee is entitled to depreciation @ 7.5% (50% of 15%) instead of 100% - Held that - According to us, the view taken by the AO cannot be faulted with and, therefore, the Ld. Pr. CIT erred in holding the AO s action of allowing the claim of 100% depreciation as erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Since we note that the hoardings being temporary structures are eligible for 100% depreciation as held by this Tribunal in assessee s sister concern M/s. Selvel Advertising Pvt. Ltd. therefore, the view taken by the AO is a possible view and, therefore, Pr. CIT erred in invoking his jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act. AO s order cannot be held to be erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue on both the issues discussed above. CIT lacks jurisdiction to interfere with the order passed by the AO by invoking his jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act. Therefore, we quash the impugned order of the Ld. Pr. CIT. Appeal of assessee is allowed.

Issues:
1. Delay in filing the appeal.
2. Revision order u/s. 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for AY 2012-13.
3. Claim of deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act.
4. Depreciation of hoarding structure @ 100%.

Issue 1: Delay in filing the appeal
The appeal was delayed by 57 days due to the misplacement of the impugned order by the assessee's Authorized Representative (AR). The delay was condoned by the ITAT as it was not the fault of the assessee, but an omission on the part of the AR. The appeal was admitted for adjudication.

Issue 2: Revision order u/s. 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for AY 2012-13
The Ld. Pr. CIT set aside the AO's order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act as erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interest. The AO had granted deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act to the assessee engaged in outdoor advertising. However, the Ld. Pr. CIT disagreed, stating that the activities did not qualify for the deduction. The ITAT held that the AO's decision was plausible, considering the previous decisions and submissions made by the assessee. The ITAT concluded that the revisional jurisdiction was wrongly exercised by the Ld. Pr. CIT.

Issue 3: Claim of deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act
The Ld. Pr. CIT challenged the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s. 80IA, arguing that the activities did not qualify for the deduction. The ITAT found that the AO's decision was supported by previous tribunal decisions and upheld that the AO's view was reasonable, hence rejecting the Ld. Pr. CIT's interference.

Issue 4: Depreciation of hoarding structure @ 100%
The Ld. Pr. CIT observed that the hoarding structure was used for less than 180 days, hence entitled to 7.5% depreciation instead of 100%. The ITAT noted that the AO's decision aligns with previous tribunal rulings, allowing 100% depreciation for temporary structures like hoardings. Therefore, the ITAT held that the Ld. Pr. CIT erred in considering the AO's action as erroneous, leading to the quashing of the revision order.

In conclusion, the ITAT allowed the appeal of the assessee, holding that the AO's orders were not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue's interest. The Ld. Pr. CIT lacked jurisdiction to interfere with the AO's decisions, leading to the quashing of the revision order.

---

← Previous Next →