9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (11) TMI 1419 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - claim of deduction under section 10AA - Held that - Once all the relevant record and material in respect of the claim of deduction under section 10AA was available on the assessment record and were examined by the Assessing Officer while allowing the claim of the assessee, then the learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax cannot exercise his jurisdiction under section 263 only for the purpose of setting aside the order and directing the Assessing Officer to re-do the assessment. Hence, in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case as well as the decision of the hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of ITO v. DG Housing Projects Ltd. (2012 (3) TMI 227 - DELHI HIGH COURT) we find that the impugned order passed under section 263 is not sustainable in law. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Determination of whether the assessment order under section 143(3) was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 3. Eligibility for deduction under section 10AA for the SEZ unit. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the order under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961: The appellant challenged the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (PCIT) under section 263, arguing it was "void ab initio" and should be quashed. The appellant claimed that the PCIT's order was based on incorrect and presumptive facts without tangible material or proper examination. 2. Determination of whether the assessment order under section 143(3) was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue: The PCIT found the assessment order under section 143(3) erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The PCIT noted that the Assessing Officer (AO) allowed the deduction under section 10AA without proper examination, particularly regarding the SEZ unit's eligibility, which was allegedly set up by splitting up an existing business. The PCIT issued a show-cause notice, and despite the appellant's detailed replies and supporting documents, the PCIT was not convinced and directed the AO to re-do the assessment afresh. 3. Eligibility for deduction under section 10AA for the SEZ unit: The appellant argued that the SEZ unit was a new setup and not a result of splitting up the existing business. The appellant provided evidence of export sales approved by SEZ authorities, purchase bills, sales vouchers, and details of the manufacturing process, which was largely manual and involved artisans. The appellant contended that the PCIT's doubts about the quantum of articles manufactured and sold, and the short span of time for manufacturing, were unfounded. The appellant explained discrepancies in the weight of gold due to the inclusion of other metals and stones in the jewellery. Judgment: The Tribunal considered the submissions and found that the AO had conducted an enquiry and accepted the appellant's claim after examining the relevant records. The Tribunal noted that the PCIT's observations were based on incorrect facts, particularly regarding the weight of gold in the jewellery. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO's order could not be deemed erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue merely because the PCIT disagreed with the AO's view. The Tribunal held that the PCIT could not invoke section 263 to set aside the AO's order for fresh enquiry when the AO had already conducted an enquiry. The Tribunal quashed the PCIT's order under section 263, allowing the appellant's appeal.
|
