9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 648X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore the AO as well as submissions made before the Pr. CIT provision of law and the case on the subject the learned Pr. CIT-1, Nashik erred in issuing notice u/s.263 and passing the revision order u/s.263. Therefore, it is prayed to declare the notice issued u/s.263 was null and void & the consequent order passed u/s.263 is also null and void. 2. The learned Pr. CIT-1, Nashik erred in initiating proceedings u/s.263 with reference to the issues not covered by the mandate for limited scrutiny for AY 2013-14 in the case of appellant. Therefore, it is prayed to hold that the notice issue for revision u/s.263 & the consequent order passed u/s.263 are null and void ( Pune ITAT decision in the case of Deccan Paper Mills Co. Ltd. reported at 51 CC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Ld. AR of the assessee has drawn our attention to page 4 of the Paper book where the Assessing Officer had issued questionnaire, at Sr. No.18, it was asked by the AO ,to provide the details of any tax exempt income during the year under consideration. In response thereof the assessee filed reply to the said question which is at Page 7 of PB to the following effect: "18. Details of any tax exempted income during the year. Also furnish details for expenditure incurred in relation to such income. There is no such exempt income during the year. The company has received Capital Contribution from Govt. of Maharashtra under Package Scheme of Incentive 2007 and the amount received is directly credited to General Reserves as "Capital Subsidy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d further drawn our attention to the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Chaphalkar Brothers (300 ITR 0113) whereby the issue of subsidy was decided holding that this kind of subsidy is revenue in nature and not capital in nature. It was also submitted by the Ld. AR of the assessee that the subsidy received by the assessee was held to be revenue in nature and there was no error in the view taken by the Assessing Officer further there is no loss to the revenue. 2.2 The Ld. AR of the assessee further submitted that case of assessee was selected for limited scrutiny and therefore it was not possible for the Assessing Officer to conduct full-fledged assessment without complying the CBDT circular in this regard . For that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ionary jurisdiction u/s.263, the order of the Assessing Officer must be erroneous so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue." 4.1 If we look into the facts of the present case, it is evidently clear that the Assessing Officer had made adequate enquiry for the purpose of finding the true character and nature of the subsidy received by the assessee i.e. whether the same was capital in nature or revenue in nature. After making sufficient enquiry, the Assessing Officer had allowed the claim of the assessee and held the subsidy to be revenue in nature. It is correct that the Assessing Officer has not written voluminous order accepting the contentions of the assessee. In our view, the Assessing Officer is not required to write d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
