9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 281X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is allowable to the assessee or not has got tax implications. The assessee has failed to show that the assessing officer has examined the various details relating to the deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act - certain factual aspects like the date of completion of the project, the details relating to commercial establishments etc. are required to be verified - Apparently these points should have been examined by the AO before allowing the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 80IB(10) of the Act - CIT was within his power to pass the impugned revision order, since the assessment order is rendered erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue in view of lack of application of mind on the part of the AO - the assessee has got every right to put forth his arguments before the AO in respect of those issues – thus, the order of the CIT is modified and the CIT is directed the AO that he should examine various issues relating to the deduction claimed u/s 80IB(10) of the Act without being influenced by the views expressed by CIT, i.e., the AO should examine the claim independently by duly considering the various contentions put forth by the assessee – Decided partly in favour of As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpleted prior to the above said date. Accordingly he submitted that the Ld CIT was not right in entertaining the view that the assessee should have completed the project within four years from the date of approval granted by the Local Authority. 4. The Ld A.R further submitted that the limit for construction of commercial units was introduced by Finance (No.2) Act, 2004 w.e.f. 1.4.2005. He submitted that the Mumbai bench of Tribunal, vide its order dated 31.1.2014, passed in the case of ITO Vs. Yash Developers in iTA No.809/Mum/2011 and ITA No.3644/Mum/2011 has held that the above said limit would apply only to those projects which was approved on or after 1.4.2005 and the amended provisions (amended w.e.f. 1.4.2005) would not apply to the projects approved prior to 31.3.2005. The Ld A.R submitted that the approval was granted to the assessee for the impugned project prior to 31.3.2005 and hence the view entertained by Ld CIT on this point is also not correct. 5. The Ld A.R further submitted that the assessee had furnished a copy of occupancy certificate dated 26.02.2008 issued by the Local Authority before the Ld CIT. However, the first appellate authority has taken the view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there is a presumption that the assessing officer has considered all the details / documents before passing the assessment order. He submitted that though the decision in the case of Kelvinator India Ltd was rendered in the context of sec. 147 of the Act, the ratio of the said decision will be applicable to the revision proceedings initiated u/s 263 of the Act. 9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The scope of revision proceedings initiated under section 263 of the Act was considered by Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd. V CIT (321 ITR 92) by taking into account the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The relevant observations are extracted below: Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 empowers the Commissioner to call for and examine the record of any proceedings under the Act and, if he considers that any order passed therein, by the Assessing Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, to pass an order upon hearing the assessee and after an enquiry as is necessary, enhancing or modifying the assessment or cancelling the assessment and directing a fresh assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sidered by Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Toyota Motor Corporation (306 ITR 49). The Hon ble Delhi High Court held as under:- It is also necessary for the parties to know the reasons that have weighed with the adjudicating authority in coming to a conclusion. The order passed by the Assessing Officer should be a self contained order giving the relevant facts and reasons for coming to the conclusion based on those facts and law. We find that the order passed by the Assessing officer is cryptic, to say the lease, and it cannot be sustained. The Tribunal cannot substitute its own reasoning to justify the order passed by the Assessing officer when the assessing officer himself did not give any reason in the order passed by him. Under the circumstances, we answer the question in affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee and remand the matter back to the file of the Assessing officer to decide the issue afresh in terms of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income tax under section 263 of the Act. The assessee, in the above cited case, challenged the order passed by Hon ble Delhi High Court by filing appeal before the Hon ble Supreme Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessing officer has examined the various details relating to the deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act. In any case, it is seen that certain factual aspects like the date of completion of the project, the details relating to commercial establishments etc. are required to be verified. Apparently these points should have been examined by the AO before allowing the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 80IB(10) of the Act. Accordingly, in our view, the Ld CIT was within his power to pass the impugned revision order, since the assessment order is rendered erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue in view of lack of application of mind on the part of the assessing officer. 14. Before us, the Ld A.R vehemently contended on the legal aspects of various issues considered by the Ld CIT. Since the Ld CIT has expressed his views on those issues, there is a possibility that the same may hamper the assessing officer from taking an independent view on those issues. The direction given by the Ld CIT is also not clear on this aspect. In our view, the assessee has got every right to put forth his arguments before the assessing officer in respect of those issues. Hence, we modify the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
