2016 (4) TMI 173 - HC - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - Held that - The entire details were filed and the order itself indicates that it can be inferred that the Assessing Officer not only made enquiries, but satisfied himself with the assessee s replies furnished from time to time in support of its stand. When the Tribunal concludes in this manner and finally in paragraph 16 holds that the Assessing Officer took a perfectly correct or a possible view, then, the order passed by him cannot be termed as erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The Commissioner of Income Tax was not, therefore, justified in invoking section 263 of the Act. We are of the view that the Tribunal s order and conclusions are essentially on facts. They cannot be termed as perverse and after it adverted to the rival contentions and all the materials on record. The Tribunal s order cannot thus be held to be vitiated by an error of law apparent on the face of record so as to call for interference in our further appellate jurisdiction. - Decided in favour of assessee

Issues:
- Appeal by Revenue against Tribunal's order
- Commissioner's exercise of powers under Section 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961
- Assessment of Foreign Currency Convertible Bonds (FCCBs) and mark to market losses
- Failure of Assessing Officer to consider Circular regarding FCCBs
- Justification of Tribunal's interference with Commissioner's order
- Consideration of materials by Assessing Officer
- Comparison with a previous court decision
- Tribunal's order based on facts and not perverse

Analysis:
1. The appeal before the High Court was filed by the Revenue challenging the Tribunal's order dated 5th February, 2013, regarding an assessment year of 2007-2008. The respondent-assessee was aggrieved by the Commissioner of Income Tax's order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2. The main contention raised by the appellant was that the Assessing Officer's order regarding the assessment of Foreign Currency Convertible Bonds (FCCBs) and mark to market losses was erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue's interest. The appellant argued that the Commissioner was justified in revising the order based on the failure of the Assessing Officer to consider a Circular related to FCCBs.

3. On the other hand, the respondent's counsel argued that the Tribunal was correct in interfering with the Commissioner's order as the basic ingredients for the Commissioner's satisfaction were absent. It was contended that the Assessing Officer had considered all materials, and the Tribunal's conclusions were supported by a reading of relevant paragraphs in the order.

4. The High Court considered the rival contentions and emphasized that the Assessing Officer had indeed looked into the issues highlighted by the appellant. The Court noted that the Assessing Officer made inquiries and the assessee provided relevant documents, which were considered by the Commissioner. The Court held that the order could not be termed as erroneous when the Assessing Officer had examined the issues and satisfied himself with the assessee's submissions.

5. In comparing the case with a previous court decision, the High Court highlighted that the Tribunal's order was based on facts and not perverse. The Court concluded that the appeal did not raise substantial questions of law and dismissed it, stating that the attempt was for a re-appreciation of factual material, which was impermissible.

6. Overall, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's order, emphasizing that the Assessing Officer had properly considered the relevant issues, and the Commissioner's exercise of powers under Section 263 was not justified in this case. The Court found no error of law apparent on the face of the record to warrant interference in further appellate jurisdiction.

← Previous Next →