9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 175X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowed partly. 3] The Tribunal was approached by the respondent assessee aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax-VII, Mumbai, dated 3rd December, 2008. The Commissioner exercised his powers under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and held that the finding of the Assessing Officer in this case, in an order is erroneous, in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 4] The assessee in this case is engaged in the business of providing basic telecommunication services and internet services. The return of income was filed for the year under consideration. The assessee declared a loss. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) by an order dated 31st December, 2007. The Assessing Officer determined ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the view taken by the Assessing Officer is a possible view of the matter. It is not the assessee who can exercise option according to the counsel but the option is to be exercised by the bond holder. It is only when he exercises this option and satisfies the terms and conditions that the conversion is permissible. That until such conversion takes place, the company is bound to pay the interest to the bond holder. This all the more, supports the conclusion of the Assessing Officer and he committed no error in law. Therefore, the Commissioner's order was rightly set aside. The appeal does not give rise to any substantial question of law and it deserves to be dismissed. 7] We have perused the order of the Tribunal. In para4 and 5 of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion is automatic and that unless the option is exercised conversion or the consideration thereof was not permissible. In these circumstances, a possible view taken by the Assessing Officer should not have been termed as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In the given facts and circumstances, the Assessing Officer had passed an order which cannot be termed as erroneous leave alone being prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Commissioner was, therefore, not justified in exercising his powers under section 263 of the Income Tax Act. He was further not justified in exercising such powers to interfere with an order which was based on the view taken by the Assessing Officer. That view was found to be possible in the given facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
