2020 (1) TMI 1572 - HC - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 by CIT - claim of deduction under Section 80IA - HELD THAT - It is evident from the records that though the appellant has raised the issue of jurisdiction of the Commissioner under Section 263 to initiate suo motu revision especially when an appeal against Assessment Order has been filed and heard and order has been passed by the Appellate Commissioner and though the Tribunal went into the merits of the case it has not decided about the jurisdiction. The jurisdiction point is an important point to decide the matter and therefore the order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal to decide about the jurisdiction. The above substantial questions of law are answered accordingly.

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Violation of the 'doctrine of merger' by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax.
3. Excess deduction allowed under Section 80IA of the Act.

Analysis:
1. The appellant company, engaged in providing and maintaining industrial complexes, declared a total income for the Assessment years 2014-15. Following scrutiny, the assessment was completed with additions. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax set aside the assessment order directing a re-assessment. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal challenging this decision. The High Court admitted the appeal based on substantial questions of law regarding the jurisdiction of the Principal Commissioner under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act.

2. The High Court observed that the Tribunal did not consider the submissions and materials in the proper perspective regarding the jurisdiction of the Principal Commissioner. The Court highlighted the importance of deciding the jurisdiction issue and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for a decision on this crucial aspect. The Court found that the Tribunal's order lacked a clear determination on the jurisdiction issue, necessitating a review.

3. The High Court emphasized that the Tribunal's failure to address the jurisdiction issue was a significant oversight. The Court set aside the Tribunal's order and directed a reevaluation by the Tribunal specifically focusing on the jurisdiction of the Principal Commissioner under Section 263. The Court's decision was based on the need for a comprehensive examination of the jurisdiction matter to ensure a just and lawful resolution.

4. In conclusion, the High Court allowed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of addressing the jurisdictional aspect in cases involving the Principal Commissioner's authority under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. The Court's decision highlighted the necessity of a thorough examination of jurisdictional issues to uphold the principles of justice and legality in tax matters.