Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2021 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (10) TMI 350 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 by CIT - allowance of deduction u/s 80IA - HELD THAT:- AO had carried out specific enquiries with regard to deduction claimed u/s 80IA(4) of the Act and it was only after he was satisfied with the propriety of the claim, the continuing deductions claimed by the assessee left undisturbed. Significantly, AY 2015-16 in question is not the first year for claim of deduction u/s 80IA(4) - assessee has claimed deduction in respect of different sites from various initial assessment years noted earlier and no change in circumstances was noted by the PCIT which is warranted in a settled point. The acceptance of continuity of claim u/s.80IA(4) cannot be seen with any concern without showing deviation in facts. Private railway sidings have been treated as eligible infrastructure facility for the purposes of Section 80IA(4) of the Act by the co-ordinate benches. Lastly, the purport of enquiry directed by the PCIT is totally unintelligible. PCIT himself has not carried out any examination or verification of facts and has simply directed the AO to ‘may verify Form 10CC and initial years assessment orders of each business based on the contract entered with Railways’. PCIT has merely set aside to indulge in verification of the same facts yet again without citing as to how the AO has committed any error except alleging no proper enquiry. The assessment order can be interdicted u/s 263 of the Act only where both the conditions are met i.e. order is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. No error has been shown by the PCIT except absence of proper enquiry. Issue of deduction has been found to be continuing since last many assessment years and necessary documentations for claim / deduction has been placed on record and examined by the AO. No inconsistency in the action of the AO has been shown which can render his action to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. As no two persons possibly think alike, variance in their analysis, understanding and application of law in same or similar factual matrix by itself would not empower a superior authority to displace the view of the lower authority. This apart, in the absence of any reason showing error in the assessment order, there was no warrant for a PCIT to interfere with the order under s.143(3) of the Act. The action of the PCIT under s.263 of the Act is thus found to be without jurisdiction and consequential order thus passed is set aside. Claim of deduction u/s 80G - As it is an admitted position that the clinching evidence in the form of receipt from the donor was available before the PCIT. The PCIT has simply observed that ‘the AO may consider deduction after proper verification’. The nature of verification is not specified. Such mundane and directionless observations in the revisional proceedings are neither here nor there, in the absence of any elaboration of the grounds for not entertaining the deduction. This ground for revisions is thus set aside. - Appeal of assessee allowed.
|