9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (11) TMI 613 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 by CIT - deduction claimed towards R D expenditure incurred for Bio-pharma division - HELD THAT - Assessee referring to annual report for the financial year 2012-13 argued that the assessee has generated revenue from Bio-pharma division, but there are certain doubts about the evidence filed by the assessee including annual report copy, because the assessee itself has filed a chart showing division wise revenue from operations as per which the assessee itself admitted that there is no revenue from operations from Bio-pharma division. AO without considering relevant facts simply allowed the claim of the assessee. Therefore, in our considered view, the assessment order passed by the AO is erroneous and also prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, because the AO failed to carry out required inquires or verifications which should have been made in the given facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, we are of the considered view that the PCIT has rightly invoked his jurisdiction and set aside the assessment order passed by the AO, on the issue of deduction claimed towards R D expenditure incurred for Bio-pharma division. Hence, we are inclined to uphold the order passed by the PCIT u/s. 263 of the Act and dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Justification of invoking Section 263 of the Income Tax Act by the PCIT. 2. Disallowance of expenses related to Bio-Pharma division under Section 35(2AB). 3. Classification of expenditure as pre-operative expenses. 4. Applicability of the decision in the case of M/s E.I.D Parry (India) Ltd. vs. CIT. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Justification of invoking Section 263 of the Income Tax Act by the PCIT: The assessee contested the PCIT's invocation of Section 263, arguing that the Assessing Officer (AO) had already disallowed a significant sum in the assessment order and had applied due diligence. However, the PCIT issued a show cause notice, asserting that the AO had allowed deductions without verifying the commencement of commercial activities in the Bio-Pharma division, rendering the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The tribunal upheld the PCIT's view, emphasizing that the AO failed to make necessary inquiries, thus justifying the invocation of Section 263. 2. Disallowance of expenses related to Bio-Pharma division under Section 35(2AB): The PCIT directed the AO to disallow the entire expenses claimed under Section 35(2AB), arguing that the Bio-Pharma division had not commenced manufacturing activities and thus was not entitled to such deductions. The tribunal supported this direction, noting that the assessee had only conducted research and development without starting commercial production, making the expenditure ineligible under Section 35(2AB). 3. Classification of expenditure as pre-operative expenses: The PCIT classified the expenditure of Rs. 10,70,08,883/- incurred by the Bio-Pharma division as pre-operative expenses, as no commercial activity was shown for the financial year 2012-13. The tribunal agreed with this classification, stating that the expenses could only be allowed if commercial activities had commenced and generated revenue, which was not the case. 4. Applicability of the decision in the case of M/s E.I.D Parry (India) Ltd. vs. CIT: The assessee argued that the PCIT wrongly applied the decision in the case of M/s E.I.D Parry (India) Ltd. vs. CIT, where the facts differed. The PCIT had referenced this case to support the view that expenses for a new project are capital in nature if no commercial production has started. The tribunal found the PCIT's application of this precedent appropriate, reinforcing the decision to disallow the expenses as pre-operative. Conclusion: The tribunal concluded that the AO's assessment order was indeed erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue due to the lack of necessary inquiries and verifications. Consequently, the tribunal upheld the PCIT's order to set aside the AO's assessment and directed a fresh assessment, dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee.
|
