9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (1) TMI 293 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - Claim of deduction u/s 57(iii) - Assessee claiming 10% deduction against income from other sources - HELD THAT - Firstly, this issue was examined by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings and therefore, it is not the allegation of the Department that the Ld. AO had failed to apply his mind to the issue under consideration. Secondly, it is also an admitted fact that the assessee has been consistently following the practice of claiming 10% deduction against income from other sources on a consistent basis for A.Y. 1994-95 onwards. This fact is also not in dispute. Thirdly, similar claim has been allowed to the assessee in the past assessment year after carrying out due verification by the concerned Assessing Officers during the course of assessment proceedings. Assessee has produced before us copies of assessment orders passed by Assessing Officers for various assessment years (From A.Ys. 2008-09 to A.Ys. 2014-15), wherein for several years this issue had been examined by the Assessing Officer and claim of deduction was allowed to the assessee under Section 57(iii) of the Act. Fourthly, on identical set of facts, in the case of 2016 (10) TMI 1351 - ITAT AHMEDABAD has allowed this issue in favour of the assessee. Since this stand taken by the assessee with respect to claiming 10% deduction against income from other sources have been accepted by the Department in the past years, looking into the facts of the instant case, we are of the considered view that the order passed by the Assessing Officer cannot be held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue under Section 263 of the Act - Appeal of assessee allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT). 2. Legitimacy of the deduction claimed under Section 57(iii) of the Income Tax Act. Summary: Issue 1: Validity of the order passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) The assessee challenged the PCIT's order under Section 263, arguing it was "ab initio void being bad in law." The PCIT had set aside the assessment order dated 13th December 2017, directing a fresh assessment. The PCIT observed that the assessee had claimed a deduction of Rs. 65,46,611/- under Section 57(iii) without providing necessary details and documentary evidence to prove the nexus between the expenses and the income from other sources. The PCIT initiated proceedings under Section 263, finding that the Assessing Officer (AO) had not verified this issue adequately. The PCIT concluded that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, directing the AO to redo the assessment de-novo. Issue 2: Legitimacy of the deduction claimed under Section 57(iii) of the Income Tax Act The assessee argued that it had consistently claimed a 10% deduction from income under the head "income from other sources" from A.Y. 1994-95 onwards, which had been allowed by the AO in previous assessments. The assessee cited past ITAT Ahmedabad rulings in its favor, including the case of Sports Club of Gujarat Ltd. The Department contended that the deduction under Section 57(iii) should only be allowed if the expenditure was incurred for earning the interest income. The PCIT observed that the expenses claimed did not appear to be incurred for earning such income. Tribunal's Findings: 1. Consistency in Past Assessments: The Tribunal noted that the AO had examined this issue during the assessment proceedings and that the assessee had consistently claimed and been allowed the deduction in past years after due verification by the AO. 2. Precedent and Judicial Consistency: The Tribunal referenced the ITAT Ahmedabad's decision in the case of Sports Club of Gujarat Ltd., which supported the assessee's position. The Tribunal also cited the Supreme Court's principle of consistency in tax proceedings, emphasizing that a consistent view taken in favor of the assessee in past years should not be changed without convincing reasons. 3. Application of Mind by AO: The Tribunal found that the AO had applied his mind to the issue during the assessment proceedings, and similar claims had been allowed in previous years after due verification. 4. No Error or Prejudice: The Tribunal concluded that the order passed by the AO was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, as required for revision under Section 263. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeals for both assessment years 2015-16 and 2016-17, setting aside the PCIT's order under Section 263. The Tribunal held that the AO's original assessment orders were valid and did not warrant revision.
|
