9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Denial of deduction u/s 80-I due to classification of Xerographic equipment under Eleventh Schedule. 2. Admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules. 3. Applicability of principles of promissory estoppel and res judicata. 4. Jurisdiction of Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263. 5. Validity of action under section 263 based on change of opinion. Summary: Issue 1: Denial of Deduction u/s 80-I The primary issue was whether the Xerographic equipment manufactured by the assessee falls under item No. 22 of the Eleventh Schedule, which includes "Office machines and apparatus such as typewriters, calculating machines, cash registering machines, cheque writing machines, intercom machines and teleprinters." The Commissioner of Income-tax argued that the Xerographic machine is office equipment listed in the Eleventh Schedule, making the deduction u/s 80-I erroneously allowed by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal examined the functional use of the Xerographic equipment and found that it is predominantly used for office work, thus falling within the ambit of item 22 of the Eleventh Schedule. Issue 2: Admission of Additional Evidence The assessee requested the admission of additional evidence, specifically a letter dated 25th January 1984 from the Secretary, Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), stating that "High Technology Reproduction and Multiplication Equipment" does not come within the Schedule XI. The Tribunal considered this letter but concluded that it did not constitute a firm or specific assurance from the authority concerned and thus did not invoke the principle of promissory estoppel. Issue 3: Promissory Estoppel and Res Judicata The assessee argued that the principles of promissory estoppel and res judicata should apply, citing previous approvals under section 80-CC and section 32A. The Tribunal held that the principle of res judicata does not apply to decisions of Income-tax authorities, and each assessment year is a separate unit. The Tribunal also noted that the doctrine of promissory estoppel does not apply against the statute in this case. Issue 4: Jurisdiction under Section 263 The Tribunal examined whether the conditions precedent for assuming jurisdiction under section 263 existed. It was argued that the order of the Assessing Officer merged with the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) concerning the deduction under section 80-I. The Tribunal found that the eligibility aspect was not disputed before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and thus was not adjudicated. Therefore, the Commissioner of Income-tax had jurisdiction under section 263 to revise the order. Issue 5: Change of Opinion The Tribunal considered whether the action under section 263 was based on a change of opinion. It concluded that the view taken by the Assessing Officer was a possible view and not patently erroneous. The Tribunal held that the power under section 263 was assumed on the basis of a change of opinion, which is not permissible. Conclusion: The Tribunal quashed the orders passed under section 263, holding that the conditions precedent for assuming jurisdiction under section 263 did not exist in the facts and circumstances of the case. The appeals of the assessee were allowed.
|
