Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (6) TMI 187 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - AO failed to consider/apply his mind to the information available on record with regard to the subsidy credited to the Capital Reserve A/c - order passed without making necessary verification as was required under Explanation 10 to section 43(1) and without examination of the nature and use of subsidy - HELD THAT:- Where the matter relating to treatment of subsidy under RIPS 2010 is arising year after year right from assessment year 2012-13 and in the said year, the matter has been duly examined by the Assessing officer and said subsidy has been treated and accepted as capital subsidy and not brought to tax and following the same position as adopted by his predecessor holding the same charge as that of ACIT, Circle 4, Jaipur, subsequently followed in AY 2013-14 by another predecessor holding the same charge, where the Assessing officer examined the matter for the impugned assessment year A.Y 2014-15 and maintained the past consistent position so accepted by the Revenue, the order so passed by the Assessing officer cannot be held as erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Though the principles of res judicata doesn’t apply in the income tax proceedings, however, it has also been laid down by the Courts that unless there are changes in the facts and circumstances of the case, past consistent position so adopted should not be disturbed. In the instant case, we find that under the same investment promotion scheme of 2010 of the Rajasthan Government, the assessee has received the subsidy right from A.Y 2012-13 onwards and similar treatment has been done by the assessee in its financial statements where the amount of subsidy has been credited in the capital reserve account and similar treatment has been done while filing its tax return which subsidy has not been offered to tax. Facts and circumstances of the case are exactly identical as in the past years and where the Assessing officer has followed the consistent position, the order so passed by him cannot be held as erroneous. We note that in the past as well as current year, the Assessing officer has followed the decision in case of Shree Cements Ltd [2017 (8) TMI 1336 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] and there is nothing on record that such decision has been overruled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court at the relevant point in time. Therefore, in such circumstances, where the Assessing officer has followed the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, the order so passed by him cannot be held as erroneous. The ld Pr. CIT has not pointed out as to how the said decision is not applicable or the same has been wrongly followed by the Assessing officer - Decided in favour of assessee.
|