9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (7) TMI 571 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - deduction u/s 80IA on account of profit from operation of the generation of power through windmill - whether the requisite jurisdiction necessary to assume revisional jurisdiction is there existing before the Pr. CIT to exercise his power? - HELD THAT - There is difference between Lack of enquiry and inadequate enquiry . It is for the assessing officer to decide the extent of enquiry to be made as it is his satisfaction as what is required under law. Reliance is placed on the decision of CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 2009 (9) TMI 633 - DE LHI HIGH COURT wherei has held that if there was any inquiry, even inadequate, that would not by itself, give occasion to the Commissioner to pass order u/s 263 of the Act, merely because the Commissioner has a different opinion in the matter and that only in cases where there is no enquiry, the power u/s 263 of the Act can be exercised. The ld. PCIT cannot pass the order u/s 263 of the Act on the ground that further/thorough enquiry should have been made by assessing officer. In the assessee s instant case, we note that Assessing Officer has raised the query and the assessee has replied that query, therefore, the assessing officer would have examined the relevant issues. Hence, order passed by the assessing officer is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Reason (issues) advanced by the ld PCIT, as noted to treat the assessment order, as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, is devoid of merit and does not deserve to be affirmed. We quash the order passed by the ld PCIT under section 263 of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) under Section 263. 2. Filing of Profit and Loss account and Form No. 10CCB. 3. Different views on the same matter under Section 263. 4. Computation of deduction under Section 80-IA. 5. Extraneous considerations in proceedings under Section 263. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) under Section 263: The assessee challenged the jurisdiction of the PCIT under Section 263 without satisfying the necessary conditions. The tribunal examined whether the order of the Assessing Officer (AO) was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Malabar Industries Ltd. vs. CIT, the tribunal emphasized that both conditions must be met for the PCIT to exercise revisional jurisdiction. The tribunal concluded that the AO's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, as adequate inquiry had been made during the assessment proceedings. 2. Filing of Profit and Loss account and Form No. 10CCB: The PCIT noted that the assessee had not filed the Profit and Loss account and Form No. 10CCB with the return of income, which was in contravention of Section 80IA(7). However, the tribunal found that the assessee had e-filed Form 10CCB on 29/09/2013 and had provided the details of income and expenses from the windmill during the assessment proceedings. The tribunal held that the AO had examined these documents, and thus, the order was not erroneous. 3. Different views on the same matter under Section 263: The assessee contended that the PCIT invoked Section 263 on the premise of taking a different view on the same matter, which is not sustainable. The tribunal supported this argument, noting that if the AO adopted one of the permissible views in law, it could not be considered erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue unless the view was unsustainable in law. The tribunal found that the AO had taken a permissible view after due inquiry. 4. Computation of deduction under Section 80-IA: The PCIT argued that the AO failed to compute the quantum of deduction under Section 80-IA due to the absence of year-wise details of profit/loss for the windmill unit. The tribunal found that the assessee had submitted the year-wise details and the AO had examined them. Therefore, the tribunal concluded that the AO had made adequate inquiries and the order was not erroneous. 5. Extraneous considerations in proceedings under Section 263: The assessee claimed that the PCIT was driven by extraneous considerations in not dropping the proceedings under Section 263. The tribunal did not find any merit in this argument but focused on the adequacy of the AO's inquiry and the correctness of the assessment order. Since the tribunal found that the AO had conducted a thorough inquiry and the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, it quashed the PCIT's order under Section 263. Conclusion: The tribunal concluded that the AO had made adequate inquiries during the assessment proceedings, and the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Therefore, the tribunal quashed the PCIT's order under Section 263 and allowed the appeal filed by the assessee.
|
