9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (5) TMI 951 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - As per CIT deduction claimed by the assessee u/s. 80IC has been wrongly allowed by AO - HELD THAT - CIT has not rebutted the facts as stated by the assessee in its submissions 22.03.2021 in reply to show cause notice u/s. 263 of the Act. In the aforesaid reply the assessee has clearly explained the nature of enquiries made by the AO before concluding the assessment on all the aspects that are set out in the show cause notice u/s. 263. Suffice it to say the AO had made due enquiries and applied his mind on all the aspects that are set out in the above show cause notice. We also find that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by its own case for the AY 2013-14 2019 (11) TMI 798 - ITAT KOLKATA As decided in own case we are of the considered opinion that while passing the assessment order allowing the deduction u/s 80IC in respect of items of other income and export incentives, the AO did not follow a view which can be said to be unsustainable in law . In the circumstances therefore, the jurisdictional facts for usurping the jurisdiction, being absent, we hold that the action of Ld. Pr. CIT was without jurisdiction and all subsequent actions are 'null' in the eyes of law. In the appeal before us and in the decision of the coordinate bench of ITAT, Kolkata in assessee s own case (supra), the issue of revisionary proceedings u/s. 263 of the Act is challenged on account of excess deduction claimed u/s. 80IC of the Act in relation to items of other income and export incentives. Each item of other income and export incentives has been elaborately dealt in the decision of the coordinate bench in assessee s own case (supra). We note that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision cited supra and the Ld. DR could not point out any change in facts or law which would have warranted any interference on our part to take a view divergent from that taken by the coordinate bench of ITAT, Kolkata in the case of assessee itself. Accordingly, we set aside/quash the order of the ld. Pr. CIT restoring the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Assumption of jurisdiction by the Ld. Pr. CIT under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Revision of the AO's order regarding the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80IC of the Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Assumption of Jurisdiction by the Ld. Pr. CIT under Section 263 of the Act: The primary issue in the appeal is the assumption of jurisdiction by the Ld. Pr. CIT under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Ld. Pr. CIT invoked the revisionary jurisdiction under section 263, stating that the assessment order passed by the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Ld. Pr. CIT observed that the AO allowed the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80IC of the Act, which included income from export incentives and other income, which, according to the Ld. Pr. CIT, should not have been included as they were not derived from the eligible business of the assessee. 2. Revision of the AO's Order Regarding the Deduction Claimed under Section 80IC of the Act: The assessee, engaged in the manufacturing of Opal & Crystal Glassware and the sale of electricity generated from a wind farm, filed its return of income declaring a total income of Rs. 43,63,19,250/-. The AO, after scrutiny, assessed the total income at the same amount and allowed the deduction claimed under section 80IC. The Ld. Pr. CIT, however, observed discrepancies in the deduction claimed, particularly concerning the inclusion of income from export incentives and other income, which amounted to Rs. 2,54,23,788/-. The Ld. Pr. CIT argued that this income was not derived from the eligible business and thus should not have been considered for the deduction under section 80IC. The assessee contested this observation, citing a previous favorable decision by the ITAT, Kolkata for AY 2013-14, where a similar issue was decided in favor of the assessee. Despite this, the Ld. Pr. CIT directed the AO to reassess the income after considering the observations and relevant judicial decisions. Tribunal's Findings: The Tribunal noted that the Ld. Pr. CIT did not rebut the facts presented by the assessee in its submissions. The Tribunal found that the AO had made due inquiries and applied his mind to all aspects of the case before concluding the assessment. The Tribunal also referred to the ITAT, Kolkata's decision in the assessee's case for AY 2013-14, where it was held that the AO's decision to allow the deduction under section 80IC, including the other income and export incentives, was a plausible view in law. The Tribunal examined the nature of each item of other income and export incentives in detail: - Interest Income: The interest received from security deposits with the electricity department was considered operational receipts with a direct nexus to the business of the eligible unit, thus qualifying for deduction under section 80IC. - Exchange Differences: These were linked to export/import transactions and were considered part of the profits and gains of the eligible unit. - Provision for Doubtful Receivables/Advances Recovered: These were excluded from the computation of eligible profits as they were not claimed as deductions. - Unclaimed Balances Adjusted: These related to trading liabilities and were eligible for deduction under section 80IC. - Insurance & Other Claims: These had a direct nexus with the business of the eligible unit and were considered part of the profits and gains. - Export Incentives: These were meant to subsidize the cost of production and had a direct and first-degree nexus with the business of the eligible unit. The Tribunal concluded that the AO's decision to allow the deduction under section 80IC was not unsustainable in law. Therefore, the jurisdictional facts for invoking section 263 were absent, making the Ld. Pr. CIT's action without jurisdiction and null in the eyes of law. The Tribunal quashed the order of the Ld. Pr. CIT and restored the assessment order passed by the AO. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, setting aside the order of the Ld. Pr. CIT and restoring the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act. The order was pronounced in the open court on 18th May 2022.
|
