9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (6) TMI 1424 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - deduction u/s 80IC - HELD THAT - CIT has to come to the conclusion and himself decide that order is erroneous by conducting necessary enquiry, if required, before passing the order u/s. 263 of the Act. It is an important fact that Pr. CIT is able to establish and show the error or mistake making the assessment order indisputably in law. Accordingly, we find it proper to remit the matter back to the file of Pr. CIT to consider the material placed on record for proper application of mind and conduct the enquiry or cause to be conducted any enquiry, if required, to draw conclusion as to order being erroneous insofar as prejudicial to the interest of revenue - Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Issues Involved:
1. Excess deduction under section 80IC. 2. Jurisdiction of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CIT) under section 263. 3. Verification of substantial expansion in the assessment year 2012-13. 4. Adequacy of the Assessing Officer's (AO) enquiry. 5. Application of Explanation 2(c) below section 263(1). Detailed Analysis: 1. Excess Deduction under Section 80IC: The primary issue revolves around the excess deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80IC. The assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 1,94,69,973/-, but the Pr. CIT noted that the assessee was eligible for only 30% deduction in the 8th year, amounting to Rs. 58,40,992/-. Thus, the AO allowed an excess deduction of Rs. 1,36,28,981/-. The Pr. CIT observed that the AO failed to verify the substantial expansion made in 2012-13, which was critical for determining the eligibility for the 100% deduction claimed. 2. Jurisdiction of the Pr. CIT under Section 263: The grounds raised by the assessee challenge the jurisdiction of the Pr. CIT to invoke section 263. The assessee argued that the Pr. CIT erred in law and fact by passing the revision order without proper consideration of the substantial expansion established in the initial year of 2012-13. The Pr. CIT's order was deemed erroneous as it was based on the AO's alleged oversight in the assessment year 2012-13, while the revision order was passed for the assessment year 2013-14. 3. Verification of Substantial Expansion in AY 2012-13: The Pr. CIT noted that the AO did not adequately verify the substantial expansion claimed by the assessee in 2012-13. The AO's failure to conduct a thorough enquiry into the substantial expansion led to the erroneous allowance of the 100% deduction. The Pr. CIT directed the AO to reassess the eligibility and quantum of the deduction after proper verification. 4. Adequacy of the AO's Enquiry: The Pr. CIT concluded that the AO's enquiry was inadequate and did not reach a logical end. The AO merely accepted the assessee's submissions without verifying all relevant evidence, making the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interest. The Tribunal noted that the Pr. CIT must himself decide that the order is erroneous by conducting necessary enquiries before passing the order under section 263. 5. Application of Explanation 2(c) below Section 263(1): The Pr. CIT invoked Explanation 2(c) under section 263(1), which pertains to orders passed without making necessary enquiries or verification. The Tribunal observed that the Pr. CIT's reference to Explanation 2(c) seemed to be a typographical error, and the intent was likely to refer to clause (a) of Explanation 2, which deals with orders passed without making necessary enquiries. The Tribunal emphasized that the Pr. CIT must establish the error or mistake in the AO's order to justify the revision under section 263. Conclusion: The Tribunal found that the Pr. CIT did not apply his mind adequately and mechanically invoked section 263. The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the Pr. CIT to reconsider the material on record, conduct necessary enquiries, and draw a conclusion on whether the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interest. The assessee was directed to be diligent in attending hearings and providing necessary evidence. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
|
