9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 175X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and revisional powers cannot be exercised for directing a full inquiry to find out if that view taken after an inquiry is erroneous. Moreover, the power of revision can only be exercised where no inquiry as required under the law is carried out and even in case of inadequate inquiry by the Assessing Officer, the order of the Assessing Officer could not be reviewed. AO has recorded from the details submitted by respondent and the explanation given by respondent that the assessee had regular business connection with the company in which investment has been made and also there was a business income to the assessee from the same. He notes that the Assessing Officer, therefore did not consider the calculation of disallowance under Section 14A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the Act ). The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ( PCIT ) had exercised the powers under Section 263 of the Act on the grounds that the order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous and it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 2. After the assessment order was passed, the PCIT found that the Assessing Officer had failed to examine the interest expenses related to the borrowing made for the investment purposes was a business expenditure allowable under Section 36(1) (iii) or was it an expenditure incurred for earning dividend income allowable under Section 57 (iii) of the Act which is determinant of the applicability of Section 14A to the facts of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding to the PCIT the Assessing Officer failed to make a disallowance of interest under the provisions of Section 14A read with Rule 8 (D) (ii) and therefore order of Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The PCIT set aside the order of the Assessing Officer with the directions to frame a fresh assessment order. Against this order the respondent preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT, by an order pronounced on 26th October 2016 set aside the order of the PCIT passed under Section 263 of the Act. 5. We have heard the counsels and considered the order passed by the PCIT and the order of the tribunal and we see no reason to frame any question of law. 6. Mr. Tejve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessing Officer, therefore did not consider the calculation of disallowance under Section 14A the interest expense debited by the assessee because the same has been incurred for the purpose of business. The PCIT though was unhappy with the view of the Assessing Officer, the PCIT himself does not say why it should have been considered for the calculation of disallowance under Section 14A. Even if one assumes that he has, after reading of the order expressed his views, but still the position is two views therefore were possible. Therefore, if one of the two possible views was taken by the Assessing Officer, the PCIT could not have exercised his powers under Section 263 of the Act. 8. Another point which we noticed from the order of PC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
