9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (1) TMI 847 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 of the Act - The order of the CIT u/s. 263 of the Act does not anywhere show as to what is the specific error that the AO has committed when granting the assessee the deduction u/s. 80IA(4) of the Act - the AO has chosen one of the two views in respect of the claim of deduction u/s. 80IA(4) of the Act - the order passed u/s 263 of the Act is not sustainable in law - Relying upon Ranka Jewellers Vs. Addl. CIT 2010 (3) TMI 544 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT order set aside. Deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act Held that - The AO was right in law in granting the assessee the benefit of deduction u/s. 80IA(4) of the Act - the CIT s order passed u/s. 263 of the Act is unsustainable and is liable to be quashed - the explanation to section 80IA(4) of the Act which has been substituted by the Finance, Act, 2009 with retrospective effect of 01.04.2000 is attempting to take away the statutory benefit granted to the assessee u/s. 80IA(4) of the Act without making any amendment to the explanation to section 80IA(4) of the Act, the said explanation substituted by the Finance Act, 2009 w.e.f. 01.04.2000 being an hindrance to the statutory deduction available to the assessee under the provisions of section 80IA(4) - Decided in favour of Assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Invocation of powers under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the CIT. 2. Eligibility of the assessee for deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. Validity of the show cause notice issued under Section 263. 4. Interpretation of 'works contract' and 'development of infrastructure facilities' under Section 80IA(4). Detailed Analysis: 1. Invocation of Powers under Section 263: The primary issue in ITA Nos. 142 & 143/CTK/2010 revolves around the CIT, Bhubaneswar invoking his powers under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act to revise the assessment orders passed under Section 143(3). The CIT contended that the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80IA(4) was erroneously allowed by the Assessing Officer (AO). The assessee argued that the AO had thoroughly examined and verified the claim before allowing it, and thus, the CIT's invocation of Section 263 was unwarranted. 2. Eligibility for Deduction under Section 80IA(4): The assessee claimed deductions under Section 80IA(4) for developing infrastructure facilities such as railway tracks, bridges, and roads. The CIT, however, held that the assessee was engaged in a 'work contract' and not eligible for the deduction. The assessee countered this by stating that the AO had already considered the explanation to Section 80IA, introduced by the Finance Act 2009 with retrospective effect from 01.04.2000, and still allowed the deduction. The assessee further argued that the explanation to Section 80IA could not negate the statutory right to deduction. 3. Validity of the Show Cause Notice: The show cause notice issued under Section 263 was signed by the Income-tax Officer (Tech.) on behalf of the CIT, Bhubaneswar. The assessee questioned the validity of this notice. The Tribunal upheld the validity, referencing decisions by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court, which stated that the Act does not specifically require the CIT to personally sign the notice, as long as the assessee is informed of the issues. 4. Interpretation of 'Works Contract' and 'Development of Infrastructure Facilities': The Tribunal examined whether the assessee's activities constituted 'works contract' or 'development of infrastructure facilities.' The assessee argued that it used its own materials and followed the specifications of the government or customers, thus qualifying for the deduction. The Tribunal noted that the term 'works contract' is not defined in Section 80IA but is defined in Section 194C. According to Section 194C, a 'works contract' excludes manufacturing or supplying products as per customer specifications using third-party materials. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee's activities fell under 'development of infrastructure facilities' and not merely 'works contract.' Conclusion: The Tribunal annulled the CIT's order passed under Section 263, stating that the AO had adopted one of the two possible views in allowing the deduction under Section 80IA(4). The Tribunal held that the CIT could not invoke Section 263 merely because another view was possible. The Tribunal also quashed the subsequent orders based on the annulled Section 263 order. Consequently, the assessee's appeals were allowed, affirming their eligibility for the deduction under Section 80IA(4).
|
