TMI Blog2010 (1) TMI 701X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e ld. Commissioner shall extend and shall be deemed always extended to such matters as had not been considered and decided in appeal - Held that: the disallowance of Rs 2,65,340/- out of Rs.26,53,404/- was subject matter of appeal before the ld. CIT (A) and hence in view of clause (c) of Explanation to section 263 the ld. Commissioner has no jurisdiction to revise the order - Decided in favor of the assessee - IT Appeal No. 2067 (Del) of 2008 - - - Dated:- 29-1-2010 - C.L. Sethi, K.D. Ranjan, JJ. U.N. Marwaha, CA and Anil Kumar, CA for the Appellant Stephen George, CIT, DR for the Respondent ORDER K.D. Ranjan: This appeal by the assessee for assessment year 2003-04 arises out of the order of the ld. Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... directed the assessing officer to delete the addition. 4. Thereafter the ld. CIT, Delhi-V, New Delhi, issued notice under section 263 of the Act on the ground that the assessing officer had disallowed only an expenditure of Rs.2.65 lakhs being 10 per cent of the total expenditure at Rs.26,53,104/- whereas the entire expenditure of Rs.26,53,104/- incurred on renovation of building was required to be disallowed. The mistake committed by the AO thus resulted into under assessment of income to the extent of Rs.23.88 lakhs. 5. During the course of proceedings under section 263 of the Act it was submitted by the assessee that the AO has exercised his faculties and conducted complete enquiry on the subject as was deemed by him and passed a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... expenses were capital in nature or revenue expenditure. It was also not clear as to whether the assessee had claimed these expenses to be deferred revenue expenditure in previous year in which they were incurred. Accordingly, the ld. CIT (Appeals) had not adjudicated upon the issue of allowance of building, renovation expenses. Hence, the explanation (c) of sub-section (1) of section 263 was not applicable. She, therefore, set aside the order made on 31st March, 2006 for fresh adjudication on the issue. 6. Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the expenses were incurred during the previous assessment year relevant to assessment year 1997-98 which is evident from findings recorded by the ld. CIT (Appeals) in his order. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and gone through the material available on record. There is no dispute that the assessee had incurred expenditure in 1997 and the expenditure was claimed as deferred revenue expenditure over the period of the life of the assets. The assessing officer had disallowed the amount on the ground that the assessee had not given the entire details and the disallowance was accordingly restricted on ad hoc basis. However, on appeal the ld. CIT has found that the entire expenditure written off in the books of accounts at Rs.26,53,404/- was allowable as deduction. The ld. CIT (A) has also discussed that the assessing officer had neither disputed any of the facts nor had brought any detail on record to show that the expenditure incurred by it was for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l be deemed always extended to such matters as had not been considered and decided in appeal. Likewise, in the case of CIT vs. Corborandum Universals Ltd. 240 ITR 99 (Mad.) Hon'ble Madras High Court has held that the ld. CIT has power of revision under section 263(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of matters, which were not the subject matter of appeal. Likewise, ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Central Warehousing Corporation vs. CIT 307 ITR (AT) 52 (Del.) has held that in a case where the assessment order passed by the assessing officer was disputed in appeal, the ld. Commissioner could not exercise jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act in respect of matters considered and decided in appeal. In the case before us, the matter was b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
