2022 (10) TMI 101 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - Deduction u/s 80IB(10) - HELD THAT - There was indeed unvarying and indistinguishable material placed before both these tax authorities during the course of regular assessment vis- -vis revisionary proceeding, which in turn demonstrates that, AO considering the same submission of the assessee carried out inquiry with respect to eligibility of claim, basis of claim and compliance relating thereto(if any) and then finalized the assessment taking one of the plausible view in the light of settled legal position in allowing the deduction u/s 80IB(10) this evidently concludes that the adjudication squarely fell within aforementioned Queen Principle . Whereas under revisionary proceedings PCIT yet again conducted an inquiry into the claim of the appellant based on the like material and sitting on the same fence displaced with the views of Ld. AO and directed for modification of assessment which is ostensibly impermissible under a law following the ration laid in down in CIT Vs Gabriel India Ltd. 1993 (4) TMI 55 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT and the Hon ble Apex Court in Malabar Industrial Co Ltd. Vs CIT 2000 (2) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT Ergo, in the above context, we find the order of Ld PCIT is unsustainable in law, consequently we quash revisionary order passed u/s 263 of the Act and restore the order of assessment passed u/s 143(3). Appeal of appellant allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Invocation of revisionary power under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Treatment of the original assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.
3. Direction for fresh assessment by the assessing officer.
4. Disregard of documents submitted by the appellant.
5. Application of the doctrine of Res Judicata.
6. Allegation of mechanical passing of the order by the assessing officer without proper enquiries.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Invocation of Revisionary Power under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The appellant challenged the invocation of revisionary power by the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) under Section 263, which was based on an audit objection. The Tribunal noted that for the CIT to invoke Section 263, the order of the assessing officer must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The Tribunal emphasized that an incorrect assumption of facts or law, or passing an order without application of mind, could render the order erroneous.

2. Treatment of the Original Assessment Order as Erroneous and Prejudicial to the Interest of the Revenue:
The Tribunal observed that during the original assessment proceedings, the assessing officer had conducted detailed inquiries and verified documents such as the audit report in Form No. 10CCB, financial statements, and other relevant documents. The assessing officer had allowed the deduction under Section 80IB(10) based on these inquiries. The Tribunal found that the CIT's revisionary order, which was based on the absence of a completion certificate from the local authority, was not justified as the appellant had applied for the certificate within the stipulated time, and the delay was due to administrative reasons.

3. Direction for Fresh Assessment by the Assessing Officer:
The CIT had directed the assessing officer to pass a fresh order after making appropriate inquiries. The Tribunal held that the CIT's direction for a fresh assessment was not warranted as the original assessment had already considered the relevant documents and inquiries were duly conducted.

4. Disregard of Documents Submitted by the Appellant:
The appellant argued that the CIT disregarded various documents submitted in support of the completion of the project within the prescribed time. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had provided sufficient evidence, including an audit report and other relevant documents, which were considered during the original assessment. The Tribunal found that the CIT's disregard of these documents was not justified.

5. Application of the Doctrine of Res Judicata:
The appellant contended that the doctrine of Res Judicata should apply as the previous assessment had already granted the claim. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue in detail but focused on the fact that the original assessment had duly considered the relevant documents and inquiries.

6. Allegation of Mechanical Passing of the Order by the Assessing Officer without Proper Enquiries:
The CIT alleged that the assessing officer had passed the order mechanically without proper inquiries. The Tribunal found that the assessing officer had indeed conducted detailed inquiries and verified the documents before allowing the deduction under Section 80IB(10). The Tribunal held that the CIT's allegation was not substantiated.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the CIT's revisionary order under Section 263 was unsustainable in law. It quashed the revisionary order and restored the original assessment order passed under Section 143(3). The appeal of the appellant was allowed, and the original assessment order was upheld.

← Previous Next →