9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 446 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - computation of deduction u/s 10B - Held that - Admittedly, in this case, the assessee has computed the deduction u/s 10B before reducing the brought forward loss and unabsorbed deprecation. The said computation of the assessee is against the judgment in the case of CIT vs Patspin India Ltd 2011 (9) TMI 276 - KERALA HIGH COURT . Against the judgment of the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Patspin India Ltd, a review petition was filed and the same was dismissed by the Hon ble High Court. In the judgment rendered on the review petition, in spite of taking note of the judgment of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court, in the case of CIT vs Yokogawa India Ltd 2011 (8) TMI 845 - Karnataka High Court (Hon ble Karnataka High Court judgment is in favour of the assessee), had decided the issue against the assessee. In view of the above judgment of the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court, the computation of deduction u/s 10B by the assessee, is erroneous and the CIT is justified in invoking his revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. - Decided against assessee
Issues Involved:
1. Allowing depreciation under section 10B. 2. Verification of the amount of deduction under section 10B. 3. Excess deduction under section 35(2AB). 4. Reconciliation of income as per TDS certificates and income credited in the books. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Allowing Depreciation under Section 10B: The assessee argued that the CIT's notice under section 263, claiming that allowing depreciation under section 10B resulted in excess disallowance of deduction and wrong carry forward of loss, is merely a change of opinion. The CIT contended that the deduction under section 10B should be allowed from the total income, not from the business income. The assessee cited various judicial decisions, including the Karnataka High Court's ruling in CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd and the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT v. Black & Veatch Consulting Pvt Ltd, to support their method of computation. However, the Tribunal upheld the CIT's view, citing the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs Patspin India Ltd, which mandates that the deduction under section 10B should be computed after reducing the brought forward loss and unabsorbed depreciation. 2. Verification of the Amount of Deduction under Section 10B: The CIT noted that the amount of deduction under section 10B was not verified by the Assessing Officer. The assessee countered that all relevant documents were submitted and verified during the assessment. They argued that the assessment was completed under MAT, which did not necessitate an elaborate order. The Tribunal, however, agreed with the CIT, emphasizing that the Assessing Officer's acceptance of the deduction without proper examination rendered the original assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 3. Excess Deduction under Section 35(2AB): The CIT identified an excess deduction of ?5.69 lakhs claimed by the assessee under section 35(2AB). The assessee contended that all relevant documents were submitted and verified by the Assessing Officer, and any excess deduction was a mistake apparent on record, correctable under section 154. The Tribunal did not explicitly address this issue separately but upheld the CIT's overall order, implying agreement with the need for reassessment. 4. Reconciliation of Income as per TDS Certificates and Income Credited in the Books: The CIT observed that the reconciliation of income as per TDS certificates and the income credited in the books was not done by the Assessing Officer. The assessee maintained that there was no income escapement, as all interest income from banks and the Electricity Board was properly accounted for. The Tribunal, however, supported the CIT's directive for reassessment, indicating that the original assessment's failure to reconcile these amounts contributed to its erroneous nature. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the CIT's order under section 263, affirming that the original assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed, and the Assessing Officer was directed to re-examine the issues as per the CIT's instructions. The decision emphasized adherence to the jurisdictional High Court's interpretation of section 10B and the necessity for thorough verification of deductions and reconciliations during assessments.
|
