Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (11) TMI 1657 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - assessment made by AO is set-aside with the directions to the Assessing Officer to complete the assessment afresh by taxing interest income earned by its units entitled for deduction u/s.80IC, under the head “Income from other sources”- HELD THAT:- It is not a case of a total set aside of assessment, but to a limited extent, so that it has to be modified to the stated extent only. The AO in the revised assessment is to interfere with the assessment only to the stated extent and, further, in doing so is only giving effect to the said directions by the ld. CIT. Clause (c) of Explanation 1 to section 263(1) is, again, specific, excluding parallel exercise of jurisdiction by the Administrative and the Appellant Commissioner. Once, therefore, the ld. CIT has, in exercise of his power of revision, held the interest income as assessable under section 56, the matter cannot be re-agitated before or revisited by the Appellant Commissioner, whose view is thus in accordance with the clear mandate of law. Reference in this context, explaining the clear position of law, may be made to the decision in the case of CIT v. Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd. [1996 (1) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT] being in fact clarified, in a similar fact situation, in the case of Herdillia Chemicals Ltd. (1995 (12) TMI 411 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT), so that the matter can only be said to be no longer res integra, being squarely covered by both, the clear position of law as well as said binding decisions. This is precisely the reason for our stating, at the outset, of the assessee as having no case. The assessee’s appeal having been upheld by us as not maintainable, the question of adjudicating its grounds assailing the assessment on merits does not arise. Order u/s.263 filed only on 03.09.2015 which is time barred by 458 days - In our clear view, even as expressed during hearing, the assessee had clearly, and presumably, only on the basis of a legal opinion, taken a conscious decision not appeal against the revision order, passed with reference to and relying on several decisions, including by the Apex Court. No reasonable, much less sufficient, cause has been advanced for condonation of delay We have already expressed that the impugned order stands passed relying on several decisions, including by the Apex Court. The assessee could not make out a prima facie case, i.e., on the merits of the impugned directions issued by the ld. CIT, before us, with we on the contrary observing the assessee to have taken a conscious decision accepting the same. The said decision would thus also have no application in the present case. The instant appeal is not maintainable, and is accordingly dismissed. We decide accordingly.
|