9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (11) TMI 621 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - Valuation of property - annual value - revision u/s 263 - Held that - the municipal authorities have fixed the valuation at a higher figure than the rent receivable. This valuation fixed by the corporation can be taken as the sum for which the property can be reasonably let out. Even though in the earlier years the valuation of Rs. 42,000 has been accepted by the Revenue authorities, the same being in violation of law, such an error cannot be permitted to be perpetuated. Reconciliation of profit - The perception of the CIT that the profit is low prompted him to issue show-cause notice to the assessee. Profit before taxation of the company as a whole for the year under consideration is Rs. 3,303.42 lakhs as compared to Rs. 3,561.15 lakhs for the immediate preceding year. Thus, there is a fall in profits by Rs. 257.73 lakhs. On the other hand, the total revenue has increased from Rs. 1,93,946.48 lakhs to Rs. 2,19,195.88 lakhs. - Held that - The AO in the present case did not find anything startling in the marginal drop in profits and for that reason the CIT held his order to be erroneous. This is not envisaged under s. 263 of the Act. - The various points noted by him are mere illustrations which according to him should have been looked into by the AO. As a matter of fact, while dealing with the aspect of profits, the CIT has not been able to show a single error in the order of the AO. - Revision us/ 263 set aside.
Issues Involved:
1. Vacancy Allowance 2. Property at Adyar 3. Agricultural Income 4. Expenditure on Leasehold Property 5. Relief under Sections 80HHC and 80-IB 6. Reconciliation of Profits Detailed Analysis: 1. Vacancy Allowance: The CIT held that the vacancy allowance should be computed using the old provisions of Section 24(1)(ix) as they existed for the assessment year 2001-02. The CIT referred to the Bombay High Court decision in Punalal Silk Mills (P) Ltd. vs. CIT and directed the AO to recompute the income from house property, including verifying any municipal tax payable or paid by the assessee. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT's order, as it was in consonance with legal provisions and case law. 2. Property at Adyar: The CIT noted that the property was let out to a group concern at a lower rent than the municipal valuation. The CIT directed the AO to examine the issue and recompute the income from house property. The Tribunal, citing the principle of consistency and previous Tribunal decisions, found the AO's order not erroneous. However, the dissenting opinion by the JM and the Third Member emphasized that the municipal valuation should be adopted as the ALV, given the property was let to a group concern and the rental was not at arm's length. The majority opinion upheld the CIT's order under Section 263. 3. Agricultural Income: The CIT noted discrepancies in the agricultural income, including the inclusion of income from the sale of agricultural land and shade trees. The CIT directed the AO to examine all issues related to agricultural income and taxability of non-agricultural income. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT's direction, finding it proper given the admitted mistakes by the assessee. 4. Expenditure on Leasehold Property: The CIT observed that the assessee incurred significant expenditure on furniture and furnishings in leasehold property, which was claimed as revenue expenditure. The CIT directed the AO to examine the issue and allow proper depreciation, referring to Explanation 1 to Section 32 of the IT Act. The Tribunal upheld the CIT's direction, noting that the AO had not correctly examined the issue. 5. Relief under Sections 80HHC and 80-IB: The CIT found that the assessee claimed deductions under Sections 80HHC and 80-IB on the basis of overall business profits, which was against the provisions of the Act and the Supreme Court judgment in IPCA Laboratory Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT. The CIT directed the AO to reconsider these deductions. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT's direction for de novo consideration but noted that the issue of computation of relief under Sections 80HHC and 80-IB was debatable and had been decided in favor of the assessee by the jurisdictional High Court. The AO was directed to consider this case law. 6. Reconciliation of Profits: The CIT noted discrepancies in the assessee's profits despite extraordinary income and directed the AO to scrutinize the accounts deeply. The Tribunal found that the CIT's direction was based on mere suspicion and surmises without pointing out specific errors. The Tribunal, citing various judicial precedents, held that the CIT's direction for a fishing and roving enquiry was not permissible under Section 263. The majority opinion set aside the CIT's order on this issue. Conclusion: The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal, sustaining the CIT's order under Section 263 on the issues of vacancy allowance, agricultural income, expenditure on leasehold property, and relief under Sections 80HHC and 80-IB. The Tribunal set aside the CIT's order on the issues of computation of income from the Adyar property and reconciliation of profits.
|
