2020 (4) TMI 648 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - character and nature of the subsidy received by the assessee - whether order passed by the AO is erroneous and there is loss to the revenue? - HELD THAT - AO had made adequate enquiry for the purpose of finding the true character and nature of the subsidy received by the assessee i.e. whether the same was capital in nature or revenue in nature. After making sufficient enquiry, AO allowed the claim of the assessee and held the subsidy to be revenue in nature. It is correct that the AO has not written voluminous order accepting the contentions of the assessee. AO is not required to write detailed order accepting the contentions of the assessee, once the same is in accordance with law. AO is only required to write decision on contentious issues placed before him and not to write decision on the issues on which sufficient enquiry was made and the AO and after enquiry AO is satisfied that the issue is covered in favor of the assessee in accordance with the provisions of law. No error in the order passed by the AO once sufficient enquiry were made to the true character of the subsidy received by the assessee - issue of subsidy is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Chaphalkar Brothers 2017 (12) TMI 816 - SUPREME COURT . In view of the matter, we fail to understand how the order passed by the Assessing Officer can be said to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of notice issued u/s.263 and revision order.
2. Initiation of proceedings u/s.263 beyond limited scrutiny.
3. Lack of findings on error in the assessment order.
4. Treatment of Octroi incentive as capital receipt.
5. Compliance with conditions for invoking provisions u/s.263.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appeal challenged the validity of the notice issued u/s.263 and the subsequent revision order by the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1. The appellant argued that the notice was null and void, and the order passed u/s.263 was also invalid.

Issue 2:
The appellant contended that the proceedings u/s.263 were initiated beyond the scope of limited scrutiny for the assessment year in question. Citing a Pune ITAT decision, the appellant sought to invalidate the notice and order issued u/s.263.

Issue 3:
The appellant raised concerns regarding the lack of findings on errors in the assessment order by the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, which is a condition precedent for invoking provisions u/s.263. The appellant prayed for the nullification of the order passed u/s.263.

Issue 4:
The main contention revolved around the treatment of Octroi incentive as a capital receipt. The appellant argued that the incentive received under the government scheme should be considered a capital receipt based on legal precedents. The appellant sought to set aside the revision order passed u/s.263 on this ground.

Issue 5:
The Tribunal analyzed the conditions required for invoking provisions u/s.263, emphasizing that the order passed by the Assessing Officer must be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Referring to the decision in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., the Tribunal held that for revisionary jurisdiction, the order must meet these criteria. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had made sufficient enquiry regarding the subsidy received by the assessee and had correctly treated it as revenue in nature. As there was no loss to the revenue, the Tribunal concluded that the order passed by the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax invoking section 263 was not in accordance with the law and therefore should be struck down. The appeal of the assessee was allowed based on these findings.

This detailed analysis of the judgment covers all the issues involved in the case, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal arguments and conclusions reached by the Tribunal.