Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2011 (8) TMI 1144

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ng the order u/s.263 of the I.T.Act without considering the decision of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan v. CIT 247 ITR 290? (B) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law Appellate Tribunal is right in not appreciating the words 'erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue' as defined in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malbar Industrial Co. Ld. v. CIT 243 ITR 83?" Short facts leading to the appeal are as follows: Respondent assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of running a hospital. For the assessment year 2004-05, the assessee filed its return of income. The Assessing Officer, accepted the return substantially except for making di .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ation of the borrowed funds for renovation of the building for capitalization. On these two grounds, the Commissioner was of the opinion that the powers under section 263 of the Act are required to be exercised. He accordingly, restored the proceedings to the Assessing Officer for re-framing the assessment after hearing the assessee. To do so, he came to the following conclusions: "The assessee has adduced evidence that the interest bearing borrowing funds were not utilized for setting up of the business but the same were utilized for expansion of the business in as much as that fixed assets of the assessee increased from Rs. 57,49,512/- to Rs. 1,32,36,268/-. The investment in building increased from Rs. 37,65,831/- to Rs. 65,13,410/- an .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... al Naval Kishor v. CIT, (1997) 224 ITR 414. With respect to treatment to undisclosed income of Rs. 19,91,000/-, the Tribunal was of the opinion that from the remainder of the profit, the assessee could have claimed deduction for the remuneration paid to the partners. In any case, the Tribunal was of the opinion that when two views are possible, powers under section 263 of the Act could not have been exercised. The Tribunal in this regard relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT, 243 ITR 83. The Tribunal also relied on the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. S.K.Srigiri and Bros. (2008) 298 ITR 13 (Karn). The decision of this Court in the case of Fakir Mohmmed Haji Has .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... g hospital. Remuneration to the partners within the limit prescribed under the law was therefore an allowable deduction. He submitted that in any case, even if it is held that two views are possible, powers under section 263 of the Act should not be exercised. Having thus heard the learned counsel for the parties, in so far as the first question on which the Commissioner sought to reopen the assessment by exercising powers under section 263 of the Act is concerned, same permits no debate. It is by now well settled that interest on borrowed funds would be allowable deduction irrespective of whether such funds are utilized for incurring revenue or capital expenditure. Reference in this regard can be made right from the the decision of this C .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... it is not necessary to repeat the same. Suffice it to state that the Act does not envisage taxing any income under any head not specified in section 14 of the Act. In the circumstances, there is no question of trying to read any conflict in the two judgments of this Court as submitted by the learned Counsel for the Revenue." In any case, we are convinced that the Tribunal was correct in holding that even if two views are possible, powers under section 263 of the Act could not and ought not to have been exercised. The Apex Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. observed as under: "The phrase 'prejudicial to the interests of the revenue' has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the Assessing Officer .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates