Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2021 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (3) TMI 923 - ITAT MUMBAIRevision u/s 263 by CIT - scope and ambit of the expression "erroneous" - assessee following percentage of completion method, did not recognize any revenue and not offered income from the project and though it paid interest on borrowed loans and claimed interest expenditure under work-in-progress (WIP) but it did not charge any interest on capital withdrawn by the partners during the year - HELD THAT:- AO was clinched with the specific issues of percentage of completion achieved by the assessee during the year as well as clinched with the issue of interest expenditure. The requisite details as well as documentary evidences were furnished by the assessee as called for by Ld. AO during the course of assessment proceedings. Since the submissions/explanations were found to be satisfactory, no further information was called from the assessee which is also evident from the fact that the returned loss has been accepted by taking note of the fact that the project was in preliminary stage and the assessee has not sold any flat during the year under consideration but received mere advances. In view of the foregoing, it could be concluded that the view of Ld. AO, could not be said to be contrary to law, in any manner, on both the issues as alleged by Ld. Pr. CIT. There was proper application of mind by Ld. AO on both the issues. Another pertinent fact to be noted is that notional interest on overdrawn capital for A.Ys. 2014-15 to 2017-18 has already been reduced by the assessee from financial expenses in A.Y. 2017-18 which have ultimately reduced the closing WIP held by the assessee for that year. The case for A.Y. 2017-18 has already been assessed u/s. 143(3) on 29/12/2019 and the assessee's closing WIP has not been disturbed in that year. This being the case, even otherwise there would be no loss to the revenue. As decided in GABRIEL INDIA LIMITED [1993 (4) TMI 55 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] Order cannot be termed as "erroneous" unless it is not in accordance with law. If an Income-tax Officer acting in accordance with law makes a certain assessment, the same cannot be branded as "erroneous" by the Commissioner simply because, according to him, the order should have been written differently or more elaborately. The Section does not visualize the substitution of the judgment of the Commissioner for that of the Income-tax Officer, who passed the order unless the decision is not in accordance with law. Therefore the revisional jurisdiction could not be held to be valid under law. We allow assessee's appeal.
|