9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (9) TMI 1551 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - jurisdictional of the Administrative CIT in passing the order u/s 263 - additional ground admission - Held that - We are of the view that the CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicating the issue raised before him on merits. The ITAT while confirming the jurisdictional of the Administrative CIT in passing the order u/s 263 of the I.T.Act, had clarified that the issue raised on merits was left open and the Assessing Officer shall decide the same de hors the observations made by the administrative Commissioner in revisionary order passed u/s 263 of the I.T.Act There was no specific direction by the Administrative CIT while passing his order u/s 263 of the I.T.Act. Therefore, the issue on merits ought to have been adjudicated by the A.O. as well as CIT(A) de hors the observation of the Administrative CIT. Thus additional ground is admitted and taken on record - matter needs to be examined by the CIT(A) afresh.
Issues:
1. Disallowance of deduction under section 10B of the I.T. Act for unbilled export proceeds. 2. CIT(A)'s rejection of the appeal without adjudicating the issue on merits. 3. Erroneous reliance on the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 4. Non-consideration of unbilled revenue as export turnover for deduction under Section 10B. 5. Failure to maintain parity between export turnover and total turnover. Issue 1: Disallowance of deduction under section 10B of the I.T. Act for unbilled export proceeds: The Assessing Officer did not allow the claim of deduction under section 10B for unbilled export proceeds not brought to India within the stipulated time. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering the merits of the issue, stating that the order under section 143 r.w.s. 263 had been nullified, making the appeal infructuous. The ITAT clarified that the issue on merits was left open, and the Assessing Officer should decide independently without being influenced by previous observations. Issue 2: CIT(A)'s rejection of the appeal without adjudicating the issue on merits: The CIT(A) rejected the appeal without delving into the merits of the case, citing the nullification of the previous order under section 143 r.w.s. 263. However, the ITAT emphasized that the Assessing Officer should examine the material independently and decide the issue afresh in accordance with the law, irrespective of previous observations. Issue 3: Erroneous reliance on the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal: The appellant contended that the CIT(A) erroneously relied on the order passed by the ITAT, which upheld the validity of the proceedings under section 263 of the Act. The appellant argued that the Tribunal's order did not address the non-consideration of unbilled revenue as export turnover for deduction under section 10B. Issue 4: Non-consideration of unbilled revenue as export turnover for deduction under Section 10B: The appellant argued that the CIT(A) erred in not considering unbilled revenue as export turnover for computing the deduction under section 10B. The appellant highlighted that the export proceeds were realized within the prescribed timeline set by the competent authority, and the CIT(A) failed to acknowledge the regulatory framework governing export proceeds repatriation. Issue 5: Failure to maintain parity between export turnover and total turnover: The appellant raised the issue of maintaining parity between export turnover and total turnover for computing the deduction under section 10B. Citing legal principles, the appellant contended that what does not constitute export in one financial year cannot form part of the total turnover in the subsequent financial year for deduction purposes. In conclusion, the ITAT allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, emphasizing the need for the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) to independently assess the issues on merits without being influenced by previous orders or observations. The additional ground raised by the appellant was admitted for further examination, as it pertained to a significant legal issue impacting the root of the matter.
|
