9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (5) TMI 480 - AT - Income TaxRectification of order u/s 154 of the Act Scope of power of AO - Withdrawal of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act Held that - Following MANAN CORPORATION Versus ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2012 (9) TMI 700 - Gujarat High Court - amendment introduced in section 80IB(10)(d) was not applicable to a project which was approved prior to 01. 04. 2005 the project was approved prior to 01. 04. 2005 - thus the matter is covered by the pre amended section - pre amended section did not mandate the ceiling of commercial area - the order of the FAA cannot be endorsed - He had interpreted the provisions of section 80IB(10)(d)in a particular manner and had relied upon one of the orders of the Tribunal - AO was not justified in amending the order by passing order u/s. 154 of the Act - enhancement made by the FAA to the income of the assessee- AOP has to be set aside Decided in favour of Assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of CIT(A) in passing the impugned order. 2. Scope of rectification under Section 154 of the Act. 3. Eligibility for deduction under Section 80-IB(10) of the Act. 4. Violation of principles of natural justice. 5. Legality of Corrigendum and initiation of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of CIT(A) in Passing the Impugned Order: The appellant contended that the CIT(A) lacked jurisdiction to pass the impugned order as the appeal arose from the proceedings of the "order giving effect to the order of the Tribunal." The CIT(A) was argued to have overstepped by going beyond the Tribunal's directions. The Tribunal, however, did not specifically address this jurisdictional challenge but focused on the substantive issues regarding the eligibility for deductions. 2. Scope of Rectification under Section 154 of the Act: The appellant argued that the CIT(A) erred by addressing issues beyond the scope of Section 154, which is limited to rectifying mistakes apparent from the record. The Tribunal found that the AO's rectification order under Section 154 was not justified as the matter involved debatable issues, not apparent mistakes. The Tribunal emphasized that rectification under Section 154 should only address clear and obvious errors, not complex issues requiring extensive interpretation. 3. Eligibility for Deduction under Section 80-IB(10) of the Act: The core dispute revolved around the eligibility for deduction under Section 80-IB(10). The appellant claimed a deduction for a slum rehabilitation project, which included a commercial component. The AO initially allowed a partial deduction, excluding the commercial component. The CIT(A) enhanced the income by withdrawing the deduction, stating that the project did not satisfy the conditions of Section 80-IB(10), particularly after the insertion of clause (d) effective from 01.04.2005. The Tribunal, however, referred to the Gujarat High Court's decision in Manan Corporation, which clarified that amendments to Section 80-IB(10) were prospective and not applicable to projects approved before 01.04.2005. Thus, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant was entitled to the full deduction, reversing the CIT(A)'s enhancement. 4. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice: The appellant contended that the order under Section 154 violated principles of natural justice. The Tribunal did not explicitly address this issue but implicitly acknowledged procedural fairness by focusing on the substantive correctness of the orders passed by the AO and CIT(A). 5. Legality of Corrigendum and Initiation of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act: The appellant challenged the legality of the Corrigendum issued by the CIT(A), which initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal, having decided in favor of the appellant on the main issue of deduction eligibility, allowed the ground related to penalty for statistical purposes, indicating that the quantum addition being deleted rendered the penalty issue moot. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the AO was not justified in passing the rectification order under Section 154, and the CIT(A) erred in enhancing the income by withdrawing the deduction under Section 80-IB(10). The Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation of the relevant provisions, particularly in light of the Gujarat High Court's ruling in Manan Corporation, which provided clarity on the prospective application of amendments to Section 80-IB(10). The Tribunal also addressed the procedural aspects, ensuring that the rectification and enhancement actions were within the legal framework.
|
