TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 336X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment. Thus, unless the basis of revision satisfying the twin conditions, namely, erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, are pointed out by the CIT in invoking Section 263 certainly, the asssessee is entitled to raise the question of jurisdiction. As in present case Tribunal, as a matter of fact, found that the redeemable non-convertible debentures were issued between 17.3.2004 and 31.3.2004 and there were no investments made during this period. Being pure and simple factual finding, which has not been denied by the Revenue, there exists no ground to accept the case of the Revenue to dislodge the findings of the Tribunal. No basis for revision and that the factual finding as regards the issuance of redeemable non ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 14A of the Income Tax Act in a proper perspective and that the interest claimed by the assessee was not related to the funds deployed in activities from which income had been shown during the year, the assessment was revised after giving notice to the assessee. 4. The assessee resisted the revision of the assessment on the ground that it had used its own funds as well as borrowed funds for investment in special purpose vehicles for carrying out various project related advisory services. In the circumstances, the assessee contended that Section 14A of the Income Tax Act was not applicable to the case on hand. The assessee further pointed out that the company did not make any investment from the date of issue of redeemable non-convertib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vised. In the circumstances, setting aside the order of assessment, the Assessing Officer was directed to re-consider the issue in proper perspective. Aggrieved by this, the assessee went on appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 6. One of the issues raised by the assessee before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal related to lack of jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income Tax to revise the assessment. The assessee contended that the proposal by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act failed to satisfy the twin conditions enunciated under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, in so far as the notice issued under Section 263 failed to pin-point any error in the assessment order warranting revision. In any event, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng investment and the purpose for borrowing were not made properly and there was no correlation, rightly, the Commissioner of Income Tax revised the order of assessment. He further pointed out that the order of assessment made no reference at all to the enquiry made on this aspect. In the circumstances, the Tribunal committed serious error in interfering with the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax. He placed reliance on the decision reported in 346 ITR 452 (TTK LIG Ltd. V. Assistant Commissioner of Income) to support his contention that the Commissioner of Income Tax has jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, to revise the order of assessment. 8. We do not agree with the contention of the learned Standing Counsel appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
