TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Tribunal has explained in the impugned order that as to how the issue raised before the Commissioner and prior thereto before the assessing officer is debatable. If there was a view on the issue taken by the Tribunal itself, then, the Commissioner cannot invoke powers under section 263 of the I.T. Act only to record a different view. Thus such finding of the Tribunal and being consistent is not required to be gone into under section 260A of the I.T. Act as it is clear that the orders of the assessing officer and the Commissioner, do not raise any substantial question of law. The Tribunal has applied its mind to the entire issue and found that the assessee had placed necessary and requisite material before the assessing officer. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder under section 263 of the I.T. Act on 27th February, 2009. The assessing officer gave effect to the directions of the Commissioner and disallowed the deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act to the extent of ₹ 47,95,506/-. That order of the assessing officer is dated 29th December, 2009. 4. Thus, aggrieved by the aforesaid order, appeal was preferred by the assessee which came to be allowed. 5. Mr.Vimal Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the revenue in support of the appeal submits that the Tribunal's order in setting aside the order of the Commissioner is erroneous. The Commissioner was properly satisfied that the order passed by the assessing officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Tribunal submits that in the subsequent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Max India Ltd. reported in [2007] 295 ITR (SC) 282 wherein it has been clarified how if two views are possible, an order under section 263 of the I.T. Act cannot be sustained. Mr.Naniwadekar relied upon paragraphs 11 and 12 of the order of the Tribunal in this regard. Mr.Naniwadekar, therefore, submits that the appeal does not raise any substantial question of law and it should be dismissed. 7. With the assistance of Mr.Gupta and Mr.Naniwadekar, we have perused the relevant part of the order of the Commissioner and the Tribunal. We have also perused both the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. We ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a view on the issue taken by the Tribunal itself, then, the Commissioner cannot invoke powers under section 263 of the I.T. Act only to record a different view. 9. We are of the opinion that such finding of the Tribunal and being consistent is not required to be gone into under section 260A of the I.T. Act as it is clear that the orders of the assessing officer and the Commissioner, do not raise any substantial question of law. The Tribunal had before it the view and opinion of the assessing officer and that of the Commissioner. The Tribunal has applied its mind to the entire issue and found that the assessee had placed necessary and requisite material before the assessing officer. The assessing officer took a view on the basis of these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
