|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (11) TMI 164 - MADRAS HIGH COURTErroneous and Prejudicial Order - CIT, finding that inter-unit loss was not adjusted against the profit for the purpose of allowing deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act, issued a notice u/s 263 - HELD THAT:- As held by the apex court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd.'s case [2000 (2) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT], every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer, cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, for example, when an Income-tax Officer adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue, or where two views are possible and the Income-tax Officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law. In the instant case, the CIT, while exercising power u/s 263 of the Act, had not rendered an independent finding to the effect that the course adopted by the Assessing Officer is neither permissible, nor the view taken by the Assessing Officer resulted in the loss of revenue which is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. In the absence of any such finding, the Appellate Tribunal, in our considered opinion, is right in setting aside the order of the CIT. Even on the merits, on the point that inter-unit loss was not adjusted against the profit for the purpose of allowing deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act, there are two views possible; one in favour of the Revenue and the other in favour of the assessee. Therefore, on the facts of the case, when there are two views are possible and it is not the case of the Revenue that the view taken by the Assessing Officer is not permissible in law, the CIT is not justified in invoking the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. Hence, we do not find any question of law, much less a substantial question of law that arises out of the order of the Appellate Tribunal. Accordingly, the tax case appeal stands dismissed.
|
