Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (3) TMI 289 - AT - Income TaxValidity of exercising jurisdiction u/s.263 - transfer of capital asset inherited - Held that:- In this case before us, the assessment order passed by the AO lacks judicial strength to stand. It is not a case where the order is short but is not supported by judicial strength. It is in this view of the matter that we feel that the learned CIT has correctly exercised his revisional jurisdiction under s. 263. The line of difference between ss. 263 and 264 is that while the former can be invoked to remove the prejudice caused to the State the latter can be invoked to remove the prejudice caused to the assessee. The provisions of s. 263 would lose significance if they were to be interpreted in a manner that prevented the CIT from revising the erroneous order passed by the AO, which was prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. In fact, such a course would be counter-productive as it would have the effect of promoting arbitrariness in the decisions of the AOs and thus destroy the very fabric of sound tax discipline. If erroneous orders, which are prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, are allowed to stand, the consequences would be disastrous in that the honest taxpayers would be required to pay more than others to compensate for the loss caused by such erroneous orders. For this reason also, we are of the view that the orders passed on an incorrect assumption of facts or incorrect application of law or without applying the principles of natural justice or without application of mind or without making requisite inquiries will satisfy the requirement of the order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue within the meaning of s. 263. Thus the order passed by Assessing Officer is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Thus, the Ld. CIT is justified in exercising the jurisdiction provided to him u/s.263 of the Act. Accordingly, the legal issue raised by the regarding validity of exercising jurisdiction u/s.263 by CIT is rejected.- Decided against assessee Application of the principle of diversion of income by overriding title - expenditure claimed on transfer of property inherited from the father - cost incurred on acquisition by the successor - Held that:- The true test for the application of the rule of diversion of income by an overriding charge is whether the amount sought to be deducted in truth never reached the assessee as his income. Further, obligations, no doubt, there are in every case, but it is the nature of the obligation which is the decisive fact. There is a difference between an amount which a person is obliged to apply out of his income and an amount which by the nature of the obligation cannot be said to be a part of the income of the assessee. Where by the obligation income is diverted before it reaches the assessee, it is deductible; but where the income is required to be applied to discharge an obligation after such income reaches the assessee, the same consequence, in law, does not follow; it is the first kind of payment which can truly be excused and not the second. The second payment is merely an obligation to pay another a portion of one's own income, which has been received and is since applied. In our view, therefore, the exclusion of the payment made by the assessee, in this case, by applying the principle of diversion of income by overriding title cannot be allowed. However, in our opinion the entailing a cost to the legatee/s if only the cost to the previous owner that would stand to be considered as the cost of acquisition , and there is no scope for adding thereto the cost, if any, incurred on acquisition by the successor, which would be in fact his cost. The same could not be considered as a cost of improvement so as to qualify, for deduction U/s.48 of the Act. Even there is no evidence with regard to expenses like professional fees paid to Shri M.S.Narayanan ₹ 3,20,000/-, Commission paid to Shri N.D.Basavaraja ₹ 4,00,000/- and other expenses ₹ 32,500/-. Hence, these expenses cannot be allowed as a cost to transfer the capital asset. - Decided against assessee
|