9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 1421X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rdance with the provisions of the Act has also been substantiated by the Ld. Counsel. As in the absence of such foundation, exercise of a suo motu power is impermissible. It should not be presumed that initiation of power under suo motu revision is merely an administrative act. It is an act of a quasi-judicial authority and based on formation of an opinion with regard to existence of adequate material to satisfy that the decision taken by the Assessing Officer is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. We unhesitatingly hold that the impugned order is not sustainable as there is no prejudice caused to the revenue as well as it is not being erroneous in terms of provisions of sec. 263 - Assessee appeal allowed. - SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For the Appellant : Shri N. S. Saini, Advocate Shri Sonu Kumar Agarwal, FCA For the Respondent : Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, CIT, DR ORDER PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This captioned appeal filed by the assessee is against the revision order u/s. 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ), of Ld. Pr.CIT(A)-2, Kolkata vide Order No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion Ltd., a Public Sector Undertaking of the Government of India and Petroliam Nasional Berhad (Petronas), Government Undertaking of Malaysia. 4.1. Assessee filed its return of income on 30.11.2017 reporting total income of Rs.321,35,87,220/- which was revised on 23.10.2018 with total income of Rs. 318,26,09,220/-. After making certain disallowance, total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs. 319,30,69,220/- u/s. 143(3) read with sections 143(3A) and 143 (3B) of the Act vide order dated 03.03. 2021 by National e-Assessment Centre (Ne AC). 4.2. Subsequently, Ld. Pr. CIT called for and examined the assessment records and observed that assessee had claimed a sum of Rs.3, 09,78,000/- as any other amount allowable as a deduction in column no. 33 of Schedule BP computation of income from business or profession in its revised return of income. Ld. Pr. CIT observed that the said amount is included under the head Other Financial Liabilities in the Balance Sheet, details of which have been provided in Note No. 15. According to the Ld. Pr. CIT, Ld. AO has completely ignored the fact that the same was not passed through the P L Account and, therefore, any amount which has not been passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch includes depreciation of Rs.3.09 Crores also charged on the leasehold asset. In the computation of total income, the depreciation as per Income-tax Rules has been claimed as a deduction amounting to Rs. 65,65, 15,754 /- and the depreciation on the leasehold asset has been claimed as separate deduction under the title Throughput Charges . 5.2. Ld. Counsel referred to the audited financial statement of the assessee as well as the computation of total income to corroborate the submissions made. In the statement of Profit and Loss, it is pointed that depreciation and amortization expenses are charged which are (a) Tangible Assets - Rs. 3,517. 30 lacs (b) Intangible Assets - Rs. 39.32 lacs In this respect, the notes to the financial statement vide note no. 29, ld. Counsel pointed to the chart containing details of various assets and demonstrated how the amount of 3. 09 Crores which is charged for the leasehold equipments forms part of the depreciation chart in the statement of Profit Loss. According to him, Rs. 3. 09 Crores formed part of the total charge of depreciation on tangible assets of Rs. 3517.30 lacs. In addition to this, vide Note No. 4, there is a depreciation of Rs. 39.32 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment afresh after providing opportunity to the assessee. 5.5. Ld. Counsel thus, asserted that there is no application consideration for which he placed reliance on the decision of Hon ble High Court of Delhi in the case of ITO Vs. D. G. Housing projects ltd. 343 ITR 329. He thus asserted that the impugned order be quashed. 6. Per contra, Ld. CIT, DR placed reliance on the order of Ld. Pr. CIT and submitted that assessee has claimed the expenses in its revised return which was not claimed in its original return as well as in the preceding years. He further submitted that no prejudice is caused to the assessee if the issue raised in the revisionary order is examined by the Ld. AO to arrive at fresh conclusion. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. We have also gone through the material placed before us. We note that the issue before us is in respect of treatment of lease charges for the gas pipelines in the books of account by complying with the provisions of Companies Act and the Accounting Standard vis- -vis the allowability of the same in computing the income from profits and gains from business or profession under the provisions of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
