2023 (8) TMI 229 - HC - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - Deduction u/s 80I in respect of its Unit IV being the 7th year of such claim and 2nd year from the date when the assessee made substantial expansion - claim denied on the ground that Form 10CCB was not filed, the relevant assessment year being the 7th year of assessment, only 30% deduction should be allowed instead of 100% deduction and therefore AO has allowed excess deduction - HELD THAT - As per assessee AO will have no power to revisit the genuineness of the claim for the substantial expansion which was already settled in the first year of substantial expansion namely A.Y. 2012-2013. Though such detailed contention was raised by the assessee, we find that the tribunal has not dealt with the same. Tribunal has not noted the crucial and important facts that the assessment year under consideration is the second year of substantial expansion and for the first year of substantial expansion namely for the assessment year 2012-2013, the claim made by the assessee for deduction at 100% was accepted by the assessing officer after conducting a detailed enquiry and examining all the documents which were produced by the assessee. Thus, what the learned tribunal ought to have noted is that whether the assessing officer/PCIT can revisit the claim which was accepted for the assessment year 2012-2013 while completing the assessment for the year 2013-2014 being the second year of substantial expansion. This aspect of the matter has not been dealt with by the tribunal. As long as the benefit granted under Section 80IC for the first year of substantial expansion remains unaltered, the assessing officer would have no jurisdiction to revisit the same issue in the subsequent assessment years. The assessee had filed the copy of Form 10CCB before the PCIT in response to the show cause notice issued under Section 263 of the Act. The tribunal ought to have seen that the PCIT did not advert to any of the documents produced by the assessee and proceeded to hold against the assessee on a totally different ground than on the ground on which the show cause notice under Section 263 of the Act was issued. Interestingly the PCIT accepts that the assessee would be entitled to 30% deduction even in the absence of Form 10 CCB. Therefore, it was a fit case where the tribunal should have interfered with the order passed by the PCIT on the several grounds by taking note of all the facts which were placed by the assessee before the PCIT and also the facts which were placed by the assessee before the assessing officer during the course of the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2012-2013. Assessee appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Deduction under Section 80IC for subsequent assessment years.
2. Order under Section 263 of the Act by the Commissioner.
3. Tribunal's justification in upholding the Commissioner's orders.
4. Scope of notice under Section 263 of the Act.

Summary:

1. Deduction under Section 80IC for subsequent assessment years:
The assessee claimed a 100% deduction under Section 80IC for its Unit IV for the 7th year of such claim and 2nd year from the date of substantial expansion. The initial claim for the Assessment Year 2012-13 was accepted by the department, and this acceptance was not disputed. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) issued a notice under Section 263 of the Act, alleging that the assessee had not filed Form 10CCB during the assessment proceedings, and thus, only 30% deduction was permissible. However, the PCIT's order was challenged on the grounds that the initial claim for the substantial expansion was accepted and should not be revisited in subsequent years.

2. Order under Section 263 of the Act by the Commissioner:
The PCIT held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had not made proper inquiries to verify the genuineness of the assessee's claim regarding substantial expansion, rendering the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The assessee argued that they had submitted all necessary documents during the initial year and subsequent years, and the AO had accepted the substantial expansion claim after thorough verification.

3. Tribunal's justification in upholding the Commissioner's orders:
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, stating that Form 10CCB was not filed during the assessment proceedings, and the assessee failed to provide supporting evidence to substantiate the AO's examination of the facts. The Tribunal did not consider the detailed inquiries made by the AO during the initial year of substantial expansion and the subsequent acceptance of the claim in following years.

4. Scope of notice under Section 263 of the Act:
The Tribunal did not address the crucial fact that the assessment year under consideration was the 2nd year of substantial expansion, and the initial year's claim had been accepted. The Tribunal failed to note that without disturbing the relief granted in the initial year, the AO could not revisit the claim in subsequent years. This principle was supported by various precedents, including Sourashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat-V, Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Paul Brothers, and Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Limited.

Conclusion:
The High Court allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, setting aside the orders passed by the Tribunal and the PCIT. The assessment order was restored, and the substantial questions of law were answered in favor of the assessee. The court emphasized that the AO could not revisit the claim for substantial expansion in subsequent years without disturbing the relief granted in the initial year.