9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (2) TMI 1073 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - assessee has incurred CSR expense which were suo moto disallowed in the computation of income at the time of filing of return of income - HELD THAT - We find that in this case the assessee has incurred CSR expense which were suo moto disallowed in the computation of income at the time of filing of return of income. However simultaneously claiming 50% of the eligible donations u/s 80G of the Act as made during the year. In our opinion there is no bar in the Act for the assessee to claim the deduction u/s 80G of course subject to satisfaction of conditions as envisaged in Section 80G of the Act. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision in the case of M/S JMS Mining Pvt. Ltd. 2021 (7) TMI 907 - ITAT KOLKATA as held since the assessee satisfies the condition u/s. 80G of the Act of the donees the assessee s claim for deduction of CSR expenses/contribution u/s 80G of the Act was allowed after enquiry by the AO. Thus we are of the opinion that the action of the AO allowing the claim u/s. 80G of the Act is a plausible view. Therefore we find that the PCIT has not been able to make out a case that on this issue raised by him the AO s order is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the revenue. So the jurisdictional fact as well as law is absent for invoking revisional jurisdiction. Therefore the usurpation of jurisdiction by Ld. PCIT u/s 263 of the Act is bad in law. Appeals of the assessee are allowed.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal issue considered in this judgment is whether the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) validly exercised the jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to set aside the assessment order framed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Sections 143(3), 143(3A), and 143(3B) of the Act. Specifically, the question is whether the deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 80G for donations made from Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) expenses was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, thereby justifying the PCIT's revisionary action. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The legal framework revolves around Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, which allows the PCIT to revise an order if it is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Additionally, Section 80G provides for deductions on donations to certain funds and charitable institutions, while Section 37(1) and its Explanation 2 pertain to the non-allowance of CSR expenses as business expenditure. The Tribunal relied on the precedent set by the co-ordinate bench in the case of M/S JMS Mining Pvt. Ltd. Vs. PCIT, which held that donations made from CSR expenses can be eligible for deduction under Section 80G, provided they meet the conditions specified in that section. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal examined whether the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. It found that the AO had duly considered the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80G during the original assessment proceedings, as evidenced by the queries raised under Section 142(1) and the responses provided by the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the AO had acted as both an investigator and an adjudicator, and therefore, the PCIT's assertion of lack of inquiry was factually incorrect. Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal observed that the assessee had suo-moto disallowed the CSR expenses in the computation of income but claimed a deduction under Section 80G for donations made to registered charitable trusts. The AO had allowed this deduction after due inquiry. The Tribunal found no statutory bar in Section 80G against claiming deductions for donations made from CSR expenses, except for specific exclusions related to the Swachh Bharat Kosh and Clean Ganga Fund. Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the legal principles from the precedent and the statutory provisions to the facts of the case. It concluded that the AO's order allowing the deduction under Section 80G was a plausible view and not erroneous, as the deduction was claimed in accordance with the law and after proper inquiry. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal addressed the arguments of the Revenue, which supported the PCIT's revisionary action, by highlighting the lack of factual basis for the PCIT's claim of inadequate inquiry by the AO. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO had indeed conducted a thorough examination of the deduction claim. Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the PCIT's invocation of Section 263 was unjustified, as the AO's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Accordingly, the Tribunal quashed the revisionary proceedings and the order passed under Section 263. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: The Tribunal cited the decision in M/S JMS Mining Pvt. Ltd. Vs. PCIT, which stated, "The Ld. PCIT's action of brushing aside the reply given by the assessee and his finding that the A.O has not verified/enquired into the issue smacks of arbitrariness and non-application of mind making the impugned order bad in law." Core Principles Established: The Tribunal established that deductions under Section 80G can be claimed for donations made from CSR expenses, provided they meet the conditions of Section 80G. The Tribunal also reinforced the principle that the PCIT cannot invoke Section 263 without a clear demonstration that the AO's order was both erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Tribunal determined that the PCIT's revisionary order was invalid and quashed it, thereby allowing the appeals of the assessee. The Tribunal's decision in ITA No. 922/KOL/2024 was applied mutatis mutandis to the related appeal in ITA No. 923/KOL/2024, resulting in both appeals being allowed.
|
