9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (11) TMI 34 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - order of the AO as erroneous insofar prejudicial to the interest of revenue for wrongful deduction claimed and allowed to the assessee under section 80IB of the Act in the assessment framed under section 143(3) - HELD THAT - AO during the assessment proceedings has required the assessee to furnish the details of the deduction claimed under section 80IB(10) and the assessee in response to the above notice has made the submission vide letter dated 7-1-2015 as detailed. Assessee has made the disclosure in the tax audit report in form 3CD about the projects and corresponding deduction claimed under section 80IB(10) of the Act and details of the units sold/unsold which is placed on pages 9 to 21 of the PB. In view of the above, we hold that the assessment order was framed under section 143(3) of the Act after due verification by the AO. Accordingly, we are of the view that the order of the AO cannot be held as erroneous insofar prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue on account of non-verification of the facts - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 2. Eligibility of the assessee's projects for deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Erroneous and Prejudicial Assessment Order: The primary issue raised by the assessee is that the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Ld. CIT) erred in holding that the assessment order passed by the AO under section 143(3) of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The Ld. CIT invoked section 263 of the Act, setting aside the assessment order on the grounds that the AO did not conduct proper inquiries and verification during the assessment proceedings. The Tribunal noted that the AO had issued a notice under section 142(1) of the Act, requiring the assessee to furnish details about the deduction claimed under section 80IB(10). The assessee responded with the necessary documents, including the tax audit report in form 3CD and other relevant details. The Tribunal found that the AO had indeed conducted due verification and inquiries, and thus, the assessment order could not be held as erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 2. Eligibility for Deduction under Section 80IB(10): The second issue pertains to the eligibility of the assessee's projects for deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act. The Ld. CIT identified defects in the deduction claimed by the assessee for two projects: Parshwanath Metro City (PMC) and Parshwanath Om Residency (POR). a. PMC Project: The Ld. CIT observed that the Building Use (BU) permission was granted for only 349 units, whereas the project was initially approved for 396 units, later revised to 376 units. The Ld. CIT concluded that the project was not completed by the stipulated date (31st March 2012) as per the provisions of the Act. The assessee contended that it was eligible for deduction for the completed units and provided details of the units sold and unsold. The Tribunal noted that the AO had accepted the assessee's claim based on the auditor's certificate and other supporting documents. b. POR Project: The Ld. CIT noted that the permission for the development of the POR project was granted on 27th October 2010, which should have been obtained before 30th March 2007. The assessee argued that the date of application for permission (28th March 2007) should be considered relevant for claiming the deduction. The Tribunal found that the AO had verified the necessary details during the assessment proceedings and accepted the assessee's claim. Tribunal's Conclusion: The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted proper inquiries and verification during the assessment proceedings. It relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co Ltd Vs. CIT and the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers, which emphasize that section 263 cannot be invoked merely because the Commissioner disagrees with the AO's conclusion if the AO has conducted due inquiries. The Tribunal quashed the order passed by the Ld. CIT under section 263 of the Act, allowing the appeal of the assessee. Final Order: The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the order of the Ld. CIT was quashed. The Tribunal pronounced the order on 25/10/2019 at Ahmedabad.
|
