9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 861X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hicle – Vehicle running on hire was allowed @ 40% as against 25% allowable – Held that:- There was no discussion in respect of this issue in the assessment order - the assessee did not make any submissions on this issue before the CIT – there is no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT on this issue – Decided against Assessee. - I.T.A. No. 533/Coch/2011 - - - Dated:- 20-6-2013 - Shri N. R. S. Ganesan, JM And B. R. Baskaran, AM,JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri Radhesh Bhat, CA For the Respondent : Smt. S. Vijayaprabha, Jr. DR ORDER Per B. R. Baskaran, Accountant Member:- The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the revisional order passed by the Ld. CIT, Kochi u/s. 263 of the Act and it relates to the assessme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... different units and one of the units was eligible for deduction u/s 10A of the Act, which was making profits. Accordingly, the assessee claimed deduction in respect of that unit u/s 10A of the Act. Since the total income was a negative figure, the Ld. CIT took the view that the assessee was not eligible for deduction u/s. 10A of the Act. Since the AO had accepted the claim of deduction u/s 10A of the Act in respect of one of the units, the ld CIT(A) has taken the view that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. 5. It was brought to the notice of the Ld. CIT by the assessee that an identical issue was considered by the Cochin Bench of ITAT in the assessee's own ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Tei Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (I.T.A. No. 347/2011 and 2067/2010 dated 27th August, 2012), wherein the Hon'ble High Court has decided an identical issue in favour of the assessee. 7. On the contrary, the Ld D.R submitted that the impugned assessment order is a non-speaking and cryptic order and hence it is not known whether the AO did make any enquiry on this issue or did he apply his mind on the impugned issue or not. The Ld D.R submitted that the lack of enquiry on the part of the assessing officer on the impugned issue would make the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record on this issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der is erroneous that the section will be attracted". The Supreme Court held that an incorrect assumption of fact or an incorrect application of law will satisfy the requirement of the order being erroneous. An order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice or without application of mind, would be an order falling in that category. The expression "prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue", the Supreme Court held, it is of wide import and is not confined to a loss of tax. What is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue is explained in the judgment of the Supreme Court (head note) : "The phrase 'prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue' has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the Assessing Of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
