Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (11) TMI 1677 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - deduction under section 80IC - Held that:- AO raised specific queries on this issue and assessee filed complete details before Assessing Officer. AO was satisfied with the explanation of the assessee therefore, his order could not be said to be erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Simply, CIT did not agree with the view of Assessing Officer cannot be said to be the order erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. AO adopted one of the possible view with regard to deduction under section 80IC and the view taken by the AO was sustainable in law. It may also be noted here that in earlier assessment year, the ITAT has confirmed the orders of authorities below in granting deduction under section 80-IB of the Act. Therefore, the facts being similar, there was no justification for Ld. CIT to initiate proceedings under section 263. Assessee, therefore, on the basis of the evidences and material on record has been able to demonstrate that this issue of deduction under section 80IC was examined in detail by the Assessing Officer before granting part relief under section 80IC of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, there was no justification to initiate the proceedings under section 263 of the Income Tax Act on this issue. Addition u/s 14A - Held that:- CIT did not point out any error or defect in the calculation made by the Assessing Officer under section 14A read with Rule 8D of the IT Rules for the purpose of making part disallowance under section 14A. The CIT merely referring to the audit report noted in the impugned order that disallowance was lesser/below the required figure. The assessment order, however, shows that Assessing Officer considered the balance sheet of the assessee and raised specific query on the issue of disallowance u/s 14A, therefore, Assessing Officer has gone through the audited account referred to by CIT in the impugned order. It, therefore, appears that CIT in the proceedings under section 263 of the Act, did not agree with the finding of fact recorded by the Assessing Officer in assessment order without any justification. Therefore, initiation of proceedings under section 263 of the Act on this issue is wholly unjustified. Allowing depreciation and additional depreciation - Held that:- The assessee explained that on electronic installation which are part of the plant and machinery, depreciation has been claimed at the same rate which is applicable to plant and machinery. The Ld. CIT, instead of examining this issue in proper perspective, merely stated that this issue was not examined by the Assessing Officer at assessment stage. It, therefore, appears that reply of the assessee is not examined by the Ld. CIT, therefore, the order of the CIT could not be sustained in law. Assessee appeal allowed.
|