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 670 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 by CIT - assessee had derived interest income on the fixed deposits made with the Karur Vysya Bank, Hyderabad followed by its claim of administrative expenditure, financial costs and depreciation etc. - PCIT holds that the said three heads of expenses are in the nature of pre-operative expenditure which could not be set-off against the assessee's foregoing interest income and AO's action allowing the assessee's claim in a very casual and mechanical manner deserves to be revised for want of proper enquiry rendering the impugned assessment as both erroneous as well as prejudicial to interest of the Revenue - HELD THAT:- As assessee's administrative expenses are in the nature of compulsorily office expenditure which have been held eligible for intra-head set-off against income from other sources than u/s. 57(iii) by the Assessing Officer. The factual position is hardly different qua its latter two heads of financial costs; including that directly paid to the bank of ₹ 2,8,53/- (supra) pertains to the very account only as well as the fact that the impugned depreciation/amortization has been a continuing relief granted very well from the preceding assessment years, whose facts and figures are nowhere in dispute. Coupled with this, the assessee has also filed on record the necessary correspondence/show cause notice issued by the Assessing Officer in Section 143(2) & 142(1) notices dt. 13-05-2014 and 24-02-2015 followed by its detailed reply on 02-12-2015 - PCIT has erred in law and on facts in assuming Section 263 revision jurisdiction. We quote hon'ble apex court's landmark decision in Malabar Industrial Co. [2000 (2) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT] wherein it was held that an assessment has to be both erroneous as well as causing prejudice to the interest of the Revenue; simultaneously, before it is sought to be subjected to exercise of revision jurisdiction u/s. 263. Their lordships further make it clear that it is not each and every assessment which attracts Section 263 revision but only wherein the Assessing Officer has not taken one of the two possible views; as the case may be. We draw strong support therefrom and reverse the learned PCIT's action exercising Section 263 revision jurisdiction. The impugned Section 143(3) regular assessment dt. 16-03-2015 stands revived as the necessary corollary therefore assessee's instant Section 263 is accepted. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|