9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 534X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... preciation part as well has been demonstrated by the assessee during the assessment proceedings. Related to interest of TDS the same also has been properly verified by the AO and the documents reveals that no addition is called for in that sphere. Therefore, the invocation of 263 by the Pr. CIT is not justifiable as the proper verification has been done by the AO at the assessment state and the view taken by the Pr. CIT is considered as a changed of opinion and cannot be construed as revisionary powers envisaged under the Pr. CIT s powers given under Section 263 of the Act. Thus, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. - I.T.A. No.456/Ahd/2020 - - - Dated:- 9-11-2022 - Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member And Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. Shri P. B. Parmar, C.A. For the Respondent : Shri A. P. Singh, CIT ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE - JM: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 27.07.2020passed by the Ld. Pr. CIT-4,Ahmedabad for A.Y. 2017-18. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee read as under: 1. The learned Principal Commissioner of Income T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 143(3). The assessment order so passed cannot be said to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 4. The learned PCIT has erred in law and on facts in passing the order u/s 263 of the Act holding the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, on surmises and conjectures, after taking 'a fresh look' at the Profit Loss Account and also concluding, without any justification, that there is every possibility of diversion of profits of non-eligible units to the eligible unit for claim of deduction u/s 80IC of the Act. 5. The learned PCIT has erred in law and on facts in ignoring the fact that the very reason for selection of the case narrated in the assessment order itself was for complete scrutiny of all the issues and in particular for the verification of the assessee's claim for deduction u/s 80IC etc which has been scrupulously enquired and considered by the AO, and therefore, directing the AO to make further inquiries on the same issues again, agitates against the well settled principle of law that 'inadequate enquiry', if at all, could not be equated with Mack of enquiry' to assume jurisdict ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee was called upon to show cause as to why Asst. Order should not be revised in relation to following items: Deduction u/s 80IC (Points 2-7): Other income of Rs.26,24,805/- needs to be considered as income not derived from manufacturing activities for the purposes ofS.80IC. Consequently, excess deduction of Rs.7,87,401/- u/s 80IC has been allowed by Assessing Officer. Since assessee has multiple productions units at various places, there is every possibility of diversion of profits of non-eligible units to eligible unit; Additional depreciation (Points 8-10): Additional depreciation of Rs.68,02,491/- on P Mc. transferred from Silvassa unit to Santej unit has been wrongly allowed. There must be several expenses for bringing such assets to various sites and putting them to use which ought to have been capitalized but have been claimed as revenue expenses. Interest on income-tax refund (Point 11): It needs to be verified as to whether interest income of Rs.4,83,616/-on income-tax refund has been included in other income credited to the P L a/c. Assessee furnished reply vide written submissions dated on 21.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that it is settled law that if two views are possible as regards a particular issue and Assessing Officer adopts either of two such views, then Pr. CIT cannot invoke jurisdiction u/s 263. Mere fact that different view could have been taken doesn't justify proceedings u/s 263. The Ld. AR relied upon the followings decisions: Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT - 243 ITR 83 (SC); Kwality Steel Suppliers vs. CIT - 395 ITR 1 (SC); CIT vs. Mehsana District Co-op. Milk Producers Union Ltd. - 263 ITR 645 (Guj) CIT vs. D. P. Karia - 266 ITR 113 (Guj); CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers - 259 ITR 502 (Guj); Sir Dorabji Tata Trust vs. DCIT(E) - (2021) 188 ITD 38 (Mum); Torrent Pharmaceutical. vs DCIT -(2021) 173 ITD 130 (Ahd); The Ld. AR submitted that Inadequacy of inquiry by Assessing Officer also cannot be ground for proceedings under section 263 of the Act. The Ld. AR relied upon the followings decisions: CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. - 332 ITR 167 (Delhi); CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma - 335 ITR 83 (Delhi); CIT vs. Vikas Polymers - 341 ITR 537 (Delhi) ; The Ld. AR further submitted that even on merits, no addition is called f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her units . As regards Para 5.4(a, b c) on Pgs.21-22 ofCIT's order, it is submitted as follows: The Plant and Machinery worth Rs.1,71,30,116/- was shifted from Bharuch to Kadi and not from Silvassa to Santej . Hence, reference to such P Me. while dealing with additional depreciation claimed on P Mc. transferred by assessee from Silvassa to Santej is out of context. Complete details of freight, installation and other allied expenses were already placed on record, In addition to above referred charges, the assessee has also capitalized certain pre-operative expenses of 1,15,82,311/- which includes interest expenses as well. The authorities below have completely overlooked above referred details. Consequently, erroneous conclusion has been drawn that details of installation and other expenses were not furnished. Perusal of record would indicate that as a matter, all such details were already available on record. Thus, even on merits, there is no error in the order passed by Assessing Officer in the case of the assessee for the year under consideration. The Pr. CIT could not have set-aside issue to Assessing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
