9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (7) TMI 408 - HC - Income TaxAppeal admitted on following substantial questions of law to the following effect 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and is law, the Hon ble ITAT was justified in quashing the order u/s 263 of the I.T. Act and confirming the order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Officer, 3(2) Lucknow? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon ble ITAT was justified in authenticating that the Development Fund in which receipts were in the form of Development Fees from the students, and was not the Capitation fees, as the same has not been properly enquired by the then Assessing Officer? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon ble ITAT was justified in authenticating the Development Fund as Income as per Income & Expenditure Accounts, as the same has not been reflected in Income & Expenditure Account instead shown directly in the Balance sheet?
Issues involved:
1. Interpretation of Section 263 of the Income Tax Act regarding revision of orders by the Commissioner. 2. Determining the criteria for an order to be considered "erroneous" and "prejudicial to the interests of the revenue." 3. Application of legal principles in assessing the utilization of funds for tax exemption under Section 11. Analysis: Issue 1: Interpretation of Section 263 of the Income Tax Act The judgment discusses the prerequisites for the Commissioner to exercise jurisdiction under Section 263. It emphasizes that for the Commissioner to revise an order, it must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The judgment clarifies that the provision is not meant to correct every mistake but only applies when the order is erroneous, such as due to incorrect facts, law application, or lack of natural justice. The phrase "prejudicial to the interests of the revenue" is broadly interpreted and includes loss of tax. Various High Courts' decisions are cited to support this interpretation. Issue 2: Criteria for an order to be considered "erroneous" and "prejudicial to the interests of the revenue" The judgment further elaborates on what constitutes an order being prejudicial to the revenue. It rejects a narrow interpretation and states that any error leading to the revenue losing lawfully payable tax is prejudicial. It explains that not every loss of revenue due to an assessing officer's decision is considered prejudicial unless the decision is unsustainable in law. The judgment cites previous court rulings to support this interpretation, emphasizing that an order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to invoke Section 263. Issue 3: Application of legal principles in assessing fund utilization for tax exemption The judgment applies legal principles to a specific case where funds collected under the guise of a development fund were allegedly not used for development, potentially avoiding tax liability. The appellant argues that if the assessee avoided paying lawful tax, it is prejudicial to revenue. The argument raises questions regarding the correctness of the Tribunal's decision and the need for a thorough inquiry into fund utilization for tax exemption under Section 11. In conclusion, the judgment provides a detailed analysis of the interpretation of Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, the criteria for an order to be considered erroneous and prejudicial to revenue, and the application of legal principles in assessing fund utilization for tax exemption. It highlights the importance of ensuring orders are both legally incorrect and detrimental to revenue interests before invoking Section 263 for revision.
|
