9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (7) TMI 572 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - disallowing the Seigniorage Charges, disallowing the productivity lined bonus, disallowing the leave encashment - HELD THAT - Since the Hon ble Tribunal has quashed the order passed U/s. 263 of the Act, dated 21/11/2013 by the Ld. CIT-1, Visakhapatnam vide its order in 2023 (10) TMI 263 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM wherein held AO is not erroneous as the Ld. AO has applied his mind while allowing the deduction claimed by the assessee U/s. 43B of the Act and therefore one of the conditions as laid down U/s. 263 of the Act is absent, the consequential order passed by the Ld. AO U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 263 of the Act giving effect to the order passed U/s. 263 of the Act has no legs to stand. Accordingly, we hereby quash the consequential order passed by the Ld. AO U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 263, and set-aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC - Assessee appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of Seigniorage Charges. 2. Disallowance of Productivity Linked Bonus. 3. Disallowance of Leave Encashment. 4. Validity of the order passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance of Seigniorage Charges: The assessee contested the disallowance of Seigniorage Charges amounting to Rs. 11,33,437/-. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - National Faceless Appeal Centre (Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC) upheld this disallowance. However, it was argued that the expenditure of Rs. 4,21,233/- related to Seigniorage Charges for the Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10, for which no exemption was claimed. The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT-1, Visakhapatnam erroneously considered this amount as pertaining to earlier years. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the disallowance of Rs. 4,21,233/-. 2. Disallowance of Productivity Linked Bonus: The assessee also challenged the disallowance of Productivity Linked Bonus amounting to Rs. 49,17,992/-. The Tribunal's decision to quash the order under Section 263 of the Act rendered the consequential disallowance of this amount invalid. Therefore, the disallowance of the Productivity Linked Bonus was set aside. 3. Disallowance of Leave Encashment: The disallowance of Leave Encashment amounting to Rs. 4,44,91,804/- was similarly contested by the assessee. The Tribunal's decision to quash the order under Section 263 of the Act led to the setting aside of this disallowance as well. 4. Validity of the Order Passed Under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The core issue revolved around the validity of the order passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Ld. CIT-1, Visakhapatnam. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer (AO) had applied his mind while allowing the deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 43B of the Act. The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd vs. CIT, which held that both conditions of the order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue must be present for invoking Section 263. The Tribunal found that the AO's order was not erroneous as he had considered the relevant provisions and allowed the deductions accordingly. Additionally, the Tribunal referred to the decisions of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT vs. Chettinad Logistics Pvt Ltd and Redington (India) Ltd vs. Addl. CIT, which supported the assessee's position regarding the non-applicability of Section 14A in the absence of exempt income. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the order passed under Section 263 of the Act by the Ld. CIT-1, Visakhapatnam. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, quashing the consequential order passed by the AO under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 of the Act. The disallowances of Seigniorage Charges, Productivity Linked Bonus, and Leave Encashment were set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee. Grounds No. 1 and 5 raised by the assessee were deemed general in nature and required no adjudication. Pronouncement: The appeal was pronounced in the open Court on 22nd January, 2024.
|
