9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 352X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quated or not was prima facie debatable - whether the reliance placed by the AO on this judgment to arrive at the conclusion was well placed or whether he should have considered the matter in the light of the Special Bench decision is thus an aspect which has influenced the Tribunal in concluding that the ingredients of Section 263 are not satisfied - That is a possible view and which could have been taken - That the said view has been taken by itself was therefore not enough to invoke Section 263 is a conclusion reached - thus, there could be no reasons to state that the order is perverse or vitiated by an error of law apparent on the face of the record – Decided against revenue. - Income Tax Appeal No. 1022 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 31-10-2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l to the interest of the Revenue to this extent. 2. What we find from the Tribunal's order is that the substantive assessment order and which was made by the Assessing Officer in this case on 14 December 2006 was subject matter of challenge before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) did consider this aspect of the matter. He passed an order on 15 October 2007 and which order of the Commissioner was impugned by the Assessee before the Tribunal in further Appeal. 3. The Tribunal had in the subject proceedings no occasion to refer to its own order in this further Appeal, but a copy of the said order of the Tribunal in Income Tax Appeal No.565 of 2008 for the same assessment year has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appeal has been partly allowed. The matter has been remanded to the Assessing Officer and he has been directed to decide the same afresh. In doing so, the Assessing Officer will be guided by the observations of the Tribunal in para 5 of this order. In that paragraph, the Tribunal has relied upon its own Special Bench decision in Atmaram Properties Pvt .Ltd. vs. Joint CIT reported in 102 TTJ 345 (Del.). Dr.Shivram, therefore, submits that once the matter is pending before the Assessing Officer in quantum proceedings, it is unnecessary to examine the ambit and scope of powers under Section 263 of the Act. He, therefore, submits that the Appeal should not be entertained. Even otherwise, according to him, when so much material has been brought ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Act dated 14 December 2006 was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The detailed arguments have been noted from paras 4.1 to 4.5 thereof. The Tribunal held that the issue of rental income from the business center has been extensively examined, discussed and then adjudicated by the Assessing Officer. As against the claim of that being income from house property and not business income, the Assessing Officer has taken a view that it is assessable as income under the head house property. He allowed the deduction accordingly. The Assessing Officer has taken a view and which could be said to be possible, because in that regard he followed the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shambhu Investm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
