2010 (2) TMI 161 - HC - Income Tax

Revision- The Commissioner passed an order under section 263(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961 setting aside the assessment order passed by the assessing officer and directing de novo enquiry on two issues. The Tribunal noted that the commissioner was not justified in exercising the suo motu power of revision under section 263. On appeal by the Department. Held that- the observation of the Commissioner that the Assessing officer had arrived at a finding to be erroneous since an enquiry was specifically held with reference to which a disclosure of details was called for by the Assessing Officer and furnished by the assessee. The Tribunal was justified in holding that recourse to the power under section 263 was not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Validity of exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 - Justification of initiation of proceedings under section 263.

Analysis:
The judgment delivered by the Bombay High Court involved an appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, challenging an order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the validity of exercising jurisdiction under section 263. The substantial question of law raised was whether the initiation of proceedings under section 263 was justifiable based on the Assessing Officer's order being erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The case revolved around an assessment order passed for the assessment year 2002-03 concerning depreciation on current investments made by a bank. The Assessing Officer allowed depreciation based on guidelines but disallowed a portion, leading to a dispute regarding the treatment of investments as stock-in-trade or capital assets.

The Commissioner of Income-tax, through an order under section 263(1), directed a reassessment on various issues, including the treatment of capital gains, depreciation on investments, and set-off of profits against losses. The main contentions were whether the capital gains were related to investments held to maturity and if the depreciation claimed was only for investments held as stock-in-trade. The assessee argued that the gains and depreciation were from different classes of investments. However, the Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had already examined the details provided by the assessee during the assessment proceedings, leading to the conclusion that the Commissioner's revision under section 263 was unjustified.

The High Court analyzed the material on record, noting that the Assessing Officer had sought and received specific details regarding long-term investments and current investments from the assessee. The subsequent assessment order confirmed the depreciation claimed on investments classified as stock-in-trade. The Court emphasized that the Commissioner's invocation of section 263 lacked justification as the Assessing Officer had conducted a thorough enquiry and accepted the explanations provided by the assessee. The Court concluded that the issues of capital gains and depreciation formed the basis for the Commissioner's revision, and since those were adequately addressed, the other issues raised were consequential and did not warrant revision under section 263.

In light of the above analysis, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, ruling that the Commissioner's exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 was unwarranted based on the facts and circumstances of the case. The appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.