Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (10) TMI 1171 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - AO had made disallowance u/s 14A which should have been added back u/s 115JB, however, the same was not added back while computing Book Profits u/s 115JB - assessee claimed deduction of education-cess u/s 40 (a)(ii) which was nothing but additional surcharge and therefore, the same was erroneously allowed - assessee claimed deduction of provision for doubtful debt in the revised return of income which was erroneously allowed - assessee, in revised return of income, claimed excise duty exemption as capital receipts u/s 115JB which was erroneously allowed - assessee excluded amount representing retention money u/s 115JB which has erroneously been allowed by Ld. AO. HELD THAT:- A fresh notice u/s 142(1) was issued to the assessee during assessment proceedings on 27/01/2016 and the assessment was framed on 30/03/2016 i.e. within a short span of approx. 2 months. The assessee has placed on record its submissions dated 09/02/2016 to submit that requisite details as called for by AO were duly furnished by the assessee and the same were considered while framing the assessment and therefore, jurisdiction u/s 263 was bad in law. Upon perusal of submission dated 09/02/2016, we find that beside furnishing party-wise list of provision for doubtful debts along with ageing thereof, no other information / documents were supplied by the assessee with respect to any of the issues as pointed out by Ld. Pr.CIT. Upon perusal of impugned order, we find that Ld. Pr.CIT has invoked jurisdiction u/s 263 since, in his opinion, Ld. AO, inter-alia, failed to consider disallowance u/s 14A, Excise Duty Exemption, Retention money for the purpose of Section 115JB. Upon perusal of quantum assessment order, it is noted that Ld. AO has even failed to compute assessee’s Book Profits u/s 115JB and no discussion, whatsoever, on the stated issues, emanates either from quantum assessment order or from the submissions made by the assessee during assessment proceedings. The failure to compute assessee’s income u/s 115JB, in our considered opinion, would certainly make the order liable for exercise of revisional jurisdiction u/s 263. There was a certain omission on the part of Ld. AO in not considering the computation of Book Profits u/s 115JB and therefore, the jurisdiction u/s 263 was rightly invoked by Ld. Pr.CIT, which was the only remedy available with the revenue. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in the revisional jurisdiction us 263 as invoked by Ld. Pr.CIT on the stated issues. The twin conditions as envisaged by Sec. 263 were duly fulfilled, in the present case. For the same, we draw strength from legal principles laid down in judicial pronouncements as enumerated by us in the opening paragraphs as well as the provisions of Explanation-2 to Section 263. As noted that the quantum order has been set aside from framing of assessment afresh which, in our opinion, would not be correct approach in the present case since it would afford opportunity of review of issues which were already considered and adjudicated by Ld.AO during original assessment proceedings. Review of the order, unless permitted by law, is impermissible. Therefore, we modify the directions of Ld. Pr.CIT by directing Ld. AO to re-consider / re-adjudicate only those issues which triggered revisional jurisdiction u/s 263. These issues have already been framed by Ld. Pr.CIT in impugned order u/s 263.
|