2012 (12) TMI 24 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of reassessment proceedings u/s 263 - deduction u/s 80IB - CIT invoked revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 on the ground that fire insurance claim cannot be said to be eligible for deduction u/s 80IB - Held that - Amount so received by the assessee company from the insurance company is in the nature of compensation for loss of stock and such compensation cannot be treated as income of the assessee so as to decline the claim of deduction u/s 80IB and should be taken into account in determining the profit and gains of the assessee company. However, from the assessment order, it is found that there is not even a whisper regarding fire insurance claim and the cost of the raw cotton, therefore, matter is so set aside to the file of the AO. AO is directed to verify the factual figure of loss vis-a-vis the amount of compensation received from the insurance company against loss of stock. If amount of compensation received is more than the amount of actual loss, the excess amount is not eligible for deduction u/s 8IB - Decided in favor of assessee for statistical purposes

Summary

Issues:
1. Invocation of revisional powers u/s 263 of the Act based on the eligibility of insurance claim for deduction u/s 80IB.
2. Interpretation of whether the insurance claim received by the assessee is derived from the industrial undertaking for claiming deduction u/s 80IB.
3. Consideration of insurance claim as part of business profit and its impact on the assessment.

Analysis:
1. The assessee challenged the invocation of revisional powers u/s 263 by the learned CIT based on the assessment order not being erroneous or prejudicial to the Revenue's interest. The primary contention was that the net profit from manufacturing activity did not include the insurance claim amount due to a fire-related loss exceeding the cost of raw cotton.

2. The arguments presented by the assessee's counsel emphasized that the insurance claim was deducted from the cost of material, resulting in a loss despite the claim receipt. On the contrary, the learned CIT DR argued that the insurance claim was not derived from the industrial undertaking and hence not eligible for deduction u/s 80IB. Citing precedents, the learned CIT DR supported the decision to set aside the matter for fresh consideration.

3. The Tribunal analyzed the facts and legal precedents, noting that the insurance claim received by the assessee was in the nature of compensation for the loss of stock due to fire. Contrary to the CIT's view, the Tribunal held that such compensation should be considered in determining the profit and gains of the assessee, supporting the claim for deduction u/s 80IB. The Tribunal referred to relevant case laws and highlighted the need for the Assessing Officer to verify the actual loss against the compensation received, ensuring only the eligible amount is considered for deduction.

4. In aligning with the assessee's position and legal interpretations, the Tribunal set aside the matter for fresh adjudication by the Assessing Officer. Emphasizing the need for factual verification and providing the assessee with an opportunity to substantiate its claim, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to exclude any excess compensation amount from the deduction u/s 80IB. Ultimately, the appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes only, reflecting the Tribunal's decision on the eligibility of the insurance claim for deduction under the relevant provisions of the Act.