2019 (11) TMI 1098 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - claim of deduction u/s 80IC - HELD THAT - In the present case, Pr. CIT simply stated that the A.O. during the course of assessment proceedings for the A.Y. 2015-16 noticed various discrepancies/infirmities vis- -vis the claim of deduction u/s 80IC inspite thereof, the A.O. had allowed the deduction under section 80IC in the case of the assessee for the relevant A.Y. 2012-13. However the Ld. Pr. CIT has set aside the order passed by the A.O. under section 143(3) of the Act for the year under consideration i.e. A.Y. 2014-15 but no observation relating to claim for deduction under section 80IC of the Act has been given for the said A.Y. On the contrary the A.O. passed the assessment order dt. 30/11/2016 by mentioning that the notice under section 142(1) of the Act alongwith questionnaire was issued to the assessee on 16/06/2016 requiring the assessee to furnish detail/information. He also stated that the assessee was engaged in the business of manufacturing data card to be used in inverters as well as UPS and furnished all the relevant documents which had been examined and taken on record. A.O after due verification of available facts and records allowed the claim of the assessee and accepted the returned income. We therefore are of the view that the Ld. Pr. CIT was not justified in holding that the assessment order dt. 30/11/2016 passed by the A.O. was erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue particularly when there is no such discussion for the said assessment year in the impugned order, the only discussion was relating to the A.Y. 2012-13. Accordingly, we do not see any justification on the part of the Ld. Pr. CIT in setting aside the assessment order passed by the A.O. - Appeal of the Assessee is allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction and statutory preconditions for invoking Section 263.
2. Assessment order's alleged erroneous nature and prejudice to the revenue.
3. Legality of setting aside the assessment order for further inquiries.
4. Validity of the directive to reassess or recompute income under Section 80IC.
5. Alleged haste and improper verification in the assessment order.
6. Relevance of findings from Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13 to AY 2014-15.
7. Factual correctness and legal misconceptions in adverse findings.
8. Principles of natural justice and sufficiency of opportunity to the appellant.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction and Statutory Preconditions for Invoking Section 263:
The appellant contended that the order dated 26.03.2019 by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CIT) was made without satisfying the statutory preconditions under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and thus lacked jurisdiction. The Tribunal found that the Pr. CIT did not establish that the assessment order for AY 2014-15 was erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue, which is a prerequisite for invoking Section 263.

2. Assessment Order's Alleged Erroneous Nature and Prejudice to the Revenue:
The Pr. CIT claimed that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue due to lack of proper inquiries and verification by the Assessing Officer (AO). However, the Tribunal noted that the AO had examined all relevant documents and allowed the deduction under Section 80IC after due verification. The Pr. CIT's observations were primarily based on findings from AY 2012-13, which were not directly relevant to AY 2014-15.

3. Legality of Setting Aside the Assessment Order for Further Inquiries:
The appellant argued that an assessment order could not be set aside merely to conduct further inquiries. The Tribunal agreed, stating that the AO had already conducted necessary inquiries and verified the relevant records before passing the assessment order. Therefore, the Pr. CIT's directive to reassess or recompute income was not justified.

4. Validity of the Directive to Reassess or Recompute Income Under Section 80IC:
The Pr. CIT directed the AO to reassess or recompute the income by conducting further inquiries regarding the appellant's claim of deduction under Section 80IC. The Tribunal found this directive invalid, as the AO had already verified the appellant's eligibility for the deduction and the Pr. CIT did not provide substantial evidence to prove otherwise.

5. Alleged Haste and Improper Verification in the Assessment Order:
The Pr. CIT alleged that the AO passed the assessment order in haste without conducting due inquiries or proper verification. The Tribunal refuted this claim, noting that the AO had issued a notice under Section 142(1) and examined all relevant documents before allowing the deduction under Section 80IC. The Tribunal emphasized that the Pr. CIT did not bring any contrary evidence on record for AY 2014-15.

6. Relevance of Findings from AY 2012-13 to AY 2014-15:
The Pr. CIT's observations were largely based on findings from the assessment proceedings for AY 2012-13. The Tribunal highlighted that each assessment year is independent, and the Pr. CIT did not provide any adverse remarks specific to AY 2014-15. Therefore, the findings from AY 2012-13 were not directly applicable to the assessment for AY 2014-15.

7. Factual Correctness and Legal Misconceptions in Adverse Findings:
The appellant contended that various adverse findings by the Pr. CIT were factually incorrect, legally misconceived, and untenable. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the appellant had provided sufficient evidence to support its claim of manufacturing activities and eligibility for deduction under Section 80IC. The Pr. CIT's assumptions were found to be based on misconceptions and not supported by substantial evidence.

8. Principles of Natural Justice and Sufficiency of Opportunity to the Appellant:
The appellant argued that the impugned order was framed without granting sufficient opportunity, contrary to the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal observed that the AO had given the appellant adequate opportunity to present its case and had examined all relevant documents before passing the assessment order. Therefore, the Pr. CIT's claim of insufficient opportunity was not substantiated.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the Pr. CIT was not justified in setting aside the assessment order for AY 2014-15. The AO had conducted necessary inquiries and verified the relevant records before allowing the deduction under Section 80IC. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the Pr. CIT's order was quashed.

← Previous Next →