9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (5) TMI 259 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - deduction u/s 80IB(A) had not been properly examined by the AO as there is payment of rent also - whether the order passed by the A.O. can be said to be erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue? - HELD THAT - In the reassessment order passed, the issue had been duly examined and on the basis of the examination of the relevant records and the application of law, one of the possible opinion had been drawn by the A.O., which cannot be said to be erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ld. Vs CIT 2000 (2) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT observed that Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, makes it clear that the prerequisite for the exercise of jurisdiction by the Commission suo moto under it, is that the order of the Income Tax Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Even if one of them recourse cannot be held to Section 263(1) - A.O. after going through the material on record and after considering the explanation of the assessee, had applied his mind. His view was that the amendment are not applicable in the case of the assessee for the year under consideration which is a possible view. Section 263 of the Act does not empower him to take action on these facts to arrive at the conclusion that the order passed by the ITO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Since the material was there on record and the said material was considered by the ITO and a particular view was taken, the mere fact that different view can be taken, should not be the basis for an action U/s 263 of the Ac and it cannot be held to be justified. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the order passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Erroneous and prejudicial nature of the original assessment order under Section 143(3). 3. Verification of interest expenses and payments. 4. Examination of deduction under Section 80IB(11A). 5. Verification of municipal taxes, insurance, and depreciation claims. 6. Examination of income from handling, transportation, and weighbridge. 7. Remuneration to partners and its impact on tax liability. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Order Passed Under Section 263: The primary grievance of the assessee is the legality of the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr.CIT) under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee contends that the order is "bad in law and bad on facts" and not based on valid material or legal evidence but rather on "wrong suspicions and baseless presumptions." 2. Erroneous and Prejudicial Nature of the Original Assessment Order: The Pr.CIT observed that the original assessment order made under Section 143(3) was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The assessee argued that the Pr.CIT had no firm belief that the original order was erroneous or prejudicial and that the scope of proceedings under Section 263 was improperly expanded beyond the notice issued. 3. Verification of Interest Expenses and Payments: The Pr.CIT noted that the interest expenses and payments had not been properly verified by the Assessing Officer (AO). The assessee countered that during the assessment proceeding, the AO had asked for and received detailed explanations regarding the interest received and paid, including the sources of loans and the necessity of heavy loans taken for business needs. The AO had accepted the claim of net interest only after satisfying himself that the interest received was from Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) made for bank guarantees and that the interest paid was for legitimate business needs. 4. Examination of Deduction Under Section 80IB(11A): The Pr.CIT observed that the deduction under Section 80IB(11A) had not been properly examined, particularly regarding the payment of rent. The assessee argued that the AO had scrutinized the claim of deduction in detail, including the submission of separate audit reports for different units and the calculation of net profit for deduction purposes. The AO had accepted the claim only after verifying that the deduction was claimed on infrastructural receipts and not on rental receipts. 5. Verification of Municipal Taxes, Insurance, and Depreciation Claims: The Pr.CIT observed that municipal taxes, insurance charges, and depreciation claims had not been properly verified. The assessee provided detailed explanations and evidence for these claims, including the payment of municipal tax for rented warehouses and the insurance of goods stored in both owned and rented warehouses. The assessee also clarified that the fixed assets at various branches included only nominal office equipment and vehicles, which were wholly used for warehousing business. 6. Examination of Income from Handling, Transportation, and Weighbridge: The Pr.CIT noted that the AO had not properly examined the income shown from handling and transportation and weighbridge income. The assessee argued that handling and transportation services were essential for the warehousing business and that the AO had accepted the claim of exempted income after detailed scrutiny. The assessee also provided evidence of owning a weighbridge and using it for business purposes. 7. Remuneration to Partners and Its Impact on Tax Liability: The Pr.CIT observed that no remuneration to partners had been paid, which could have affected the tax liability. The assessee contended that the payment of remuneration to partners was discretionary and authorized by the partnership deed. The AO had verified that no remuneration was claimed as per the terms of the partnership deed, and the decision not to pay remuneration was a legitimate tax planning strategy. Conclusion: The Tribunal found that the AO had duly examined the relevant records and applied the law correctly, making one of the possible opinions that could be drawn. The Tribunal held that the order passed by the AO was not erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Tribunal quashed the order passed under Section 263 by the Pr.CIT, concluding that the AO's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Result: The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the order under Section 263 was quashed.
|
