2020 (9) TMI 672 - HC - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - AO while computing the quantum eligible for deduction u/s 80IB(10), omitted to examine the vital aspects and parameters - JDA agreement - power of PCIT to invoke revision - HELD THAT - We find that the issue involved in the matter is wholly factual. AO formed an opinion initially and completed the assessment under Section 143(3) - PCIT thought fit to invoke his power u/s 263 and doubted the value adopted in the transaction and that the Partnership Firm was a device made to divert the excess profit to the sons of the land owners and this according to the PCIT was clearly hit by Section 80 IA(10) and the excessive deduction had to be deleted. Tribunal on its part re-examined the factual position and opined that there is nothing to indicate that the land was transferred at the guideline value so as to shift the profit to the Partnership Firm and in the absence of any material to substantiate the same, there was no ground to interfere with the Assessment Order by invoking the power under Section 263 of the Act. PCIT faulted the land owners for having sold the land at the guideline value. There was no material available before the PCIT that such guideline value was ridiculously low. Profit is being computed based on the sale which were effected during the assessment year under consideration, AY 2012-13, that is more than five years after entering into the Joint Development Agreement, four years after the Partnership Firm came into being. In the absence of any material to show that the assessee had so arranged the business and made transaction to produce more than the ordinary profits and the same having not been established by the Revenue, there was no ground for the PCIT to exercise its power under Section 263 of the Act. PCIT power u/s 263 - The Statute mandates twin conditions to be fulfilled while exercising such power and therefore there is no room to invoke such a power and in the absence of any material before the PCIT to term the Partnership Firm to be a device adopted by the assessee to earn more than the ordinary profit, there was no reason for the PCIT to interfere with the Assessment Order under Section 143(3) of the Act. That apart, the Tribunal has elaborately considered the factual position and granted relief to the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Sections 80IA(10) and 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Assessment of profits and sale consideration in a partnership firm involving joint development agreement.
3. Determination of tax avoidance through partnership arrangements with nonresident Indian partners.

Issue 1: Interpretation of Sections 80IA(10) and 80IB(10)
The appeal raised the question of whether Section 80IA(10) applies to Section 80IB(10). The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) invoked Section 263 of the Act, questioning the quantum eligible for deduction under Section 80IB(10), based on the assessment of project income and net profit margins. PCIT concluded that excess profits were diverted to the sons of the landowners, impacting the deduction eligibility. The PCIT's decision was based on the premise that the firm's arrangement was aimed at availing excessive deductions. However, the Tribunal found no evidence supporting the PCIT's assessment and allowed the assessee's appeal.

Issue 2: Assessment of profits and sale consideration
The partnership firm, formed for a housing project on land jointly owned by two groups, faced scrutiny over the assessment of profits and sale consideration. The PCIT questioned the profit margins, suspecting excess profits diverted to the landowners' sons. The PCIT emphasized that guideline value does not solely determine sale consideration, citing legal precedents. However, the Tribunal found no evidence of profit-shifting arrangements by the firm, leading to the allowance of the assessee's appeal.

Issue 3: Tax avoidance through partnership arrangements
The PCIT suspected tax avoidance through the partnership arrangement involving nonresident Indian partners. The PCIT's decision to invoke Section 263 was based on the assumption that the partnership was a device to avoid taxation on land sale profits. However, the Tribunal's detailed analysis found no factual basis for such tax avoidance schemes, leading to the dismissal of the PCIT's intervention and upholding the assessee's position.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the Tax Case Appeal, emphasizing the absence of substantial legal questions arising from the case. The judgment highlighted the importance of factual evidence in assessing tax implications and the necessity to establish concrete grounds for invoking provisions under the Income Tax Act.