Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 1729 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - deduction u/s.80IB - HELD THAT:- There were no justification of Learned Pr.CIT to hold that assessee has claimed more than ordinary profit as exempt while making claim of deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act. The supplementary partnership deed is already part of the record of the Revenue in preceding assessment years, therefore, there is no need to file copy of the same again and again in each year. Thus, the Assessing Officer correctly examined the issue in the light of the material available on record and in the light of judgment in ALIDHRA TAXSPIN ENGINEERS & 1 [2017 (5) TMI 1684 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] . This issue is therefore decided in favour of the assessee. Claim of deduction made u/s.80IB the assessee has explained that copy of Form No.10CCB was filed online along with complete details - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the Assessing Officer has taken one of the view possible based on facts and material available on record. The Learned Pr.CIT should not have taken a different view against the assessee. Unless the view taken by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in Law. We rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. [2007 (11) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT] In the present case, all the records of the construction of the project were available to the Assessing Officer not only in assessment year under appeal but in preceding assessment years as well. Therefore, while framing the assessment, the Assessing Officer had access to all the records of the assessee and when Assessing Officer after perusing the record passed the assessment order in favour of the assessee granting deduction u/s.80IB of the Act, the same could not be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. It is well settled law that principle of consistency apply to the Income Tax proceedings. Therefore, on same set of facts, the Learned Pr.CIT should not have taken a different view in the matter. We, therefore do not find any error in the assessment order so as to revise u/s.263 of the Income Tax Act. There were no justification for Learned Pr.CIT to invoke to jurisdiction u/s.263, we accordingly set-aside the order u/s.263 of the Income Tax Act and restore the order of the Assessing Officer u/s.143(3) dated 18.03.2016. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
|