Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (2) TMI 93 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - sec. 33AB deduction admissibility - HELD THAT:- PCIT has erred in law and on facts in holding the impugned assessment as erroneous causing prejudice to the interest of Revenue on the ground which nowhere formed subject-matter of the CASS scrutiny as it is evident from the case records. We reiterate the learned co-ordinate bench’s detained reasoning hereinabove that the sec. 263 revision proceedings ought not to have been set into motion for expanding the jurisdiction of the AO to examine the issues beyond the scope of limited scrutiny. We therefore reverse the PCIT’s action assuming sec. 263 revision jurisdiction in these facts and circumstances. We find that the relevant clause in Tea Development Accounts, Scheme, 2007 (pages 1 to 45 of the paper book) contain clause No.9 regarding withdrawal or utilization of the amounts deposited thereunder. The assessee’s statement of necessary particulars in part-ii alongwithi Form No.3AC {Auditor report sec. 33AB(2)} indicates that it had withdrawn ₹44,58,300/-, ₹96,54,000/- as on 26.04.2013, 24.05.2013 and 05.05.2013 for green tea factory material alongwith plant and equipment of former two and irrigation; respectively. These crucial facts as well as the corresponding purpose in the Tea Development Accounts Scheme, 2007 have gone unrebutted from the Revenue side during the course of hearing. In this factual backdrop of that even if we agree with the PCIT’s stand that the Assessing Officer had not carried out necessary enquiries about the purpose of the assessee’ withdrawals amounting of ₹165,36,500/- from the Tea Development Accounts Scheme, 2007, no prejudice has been caused to interest of the Revenue since the amounts pertain to the specified purpose under the scheme only. We make it clear that hon'ble apex court’s landmark judgment in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [1991 (10) TMI 26 - KERALA HIGH COURT] has settled the law long back that twin conditions of an assessment being erroneous as well as causing prejudice to the interest of the Revenue have to be simultaneously satisfied before the Commissioner of Income tax or Principal Commissioner of Income Tax; as the case may be, seeks to invoke sec. 263 Revenue proceedings. We therefore hold that the PCIT’s revision directions under challenge are not sustainable in law. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|