9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (5) TMI 513 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - nature of subsidy received - Held that - While adjudicating the nature of subsidy received by the assessee whether it is capital/Revenue in nature. AO shall follow the ratio decidendi laid by the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Rasoi Limited (2011 (5) TMI 23 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT) in case if the facts and law are identical. AO to give effect to the order of the CIT in respect of both the issues after hearing the assessee and pass a speaking order. We dismiss the present appeal of the assessee and do not comment on the order of the Principal CIT U/s 263 of the Act, for which the assessee is in appeal before us.
Issues Involved:
1. Exercise of power under Section 263 by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT). 2. Classification of subsidy received as capital or revenue receipt. 3. Deduction on account of unpaid liability for gratuity. Detailed Analysis: 1. Exercise of Power under Section 263 by PCIT: The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) exercised revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, setting aside the original assessment order dated 22.03.2013. The PCIT held that the order passed under Section 143(3) appeared to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The PCIT directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to scrutinize and verify the details regarding the subsidy received and the unpaid liability for gratuity, and then arrive at a decision as per the provisions of the Act after giving proper opportunity to the assessee. 2. Classification of Subsidy Received as Capital or Revenue Receipt: The main issue revolved around whether the subsidy amounting to ?196.77 lakhs received by the assessee under the West Bengal Incentive Scheme, 2000, should be classified as a capital receipt or a revenue receipt. The assessee argued that the subsidy received was a capital receipt, citing the jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Rasoi Ltd., which held that a subsidy received under "Industrial Promotional Assistance" (IPA) is a capital receipt. The PCIT, however, observed that the AO did not investigate this issue adequately during the assessment proceedings. The Tribunal noted that the AO did not conduct any investigation regarding the subsidy received, making the assessment order erroneous. The Tribunal directed the AO to consider the judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rasoi Ltd. while giving appeal effect, provided the facts of the assessee’s case are identical to those in the Rasoi Ltd. case. 3. Deduction on Account of Unpaid Liability for Gratuity: The PCIT also set aside the assessment order concerning the deduction allowed for unpaid liability for gratuity amounting to ?2,10,450/-. The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not challenge this direction of the PCIT in the revised grounds of appeal. Therefore, this direction was not disturbed by the Tribunal. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the PCIT's exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 263, finding that the AO's failure to investigate the subsidy issue rendered the assessment order erroneous. The Tribunal directed the AO to consider the judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rasoi Ltd. while giving appeal effect, ensuring that the facts of the assessee’s case align with those of the cited case. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee with these observations and did not comment on the PCIT's order under Section 263. Final Order: The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee and directed the AO to give effect to the PCIT's order after hearing the assessee and passing a speaking order. The decision was pronounced in the open court on 04.05.2018.
|
