TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 173X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 263 of the Act. We are of the view that the Tribunal's order and conclusions are essentially on facts. They cannot be termed as perverse and after it adverted to the rival contentions and all the materials on record. The Tribunal's order cannot thus be held to be vitiated by an error of law apparent on the face of record so as to call for interference in our further appellate jurisdiction. - Decided in favour of assessee - Income Tax Appeal No. 1816 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 28-3-2016 - S. C. Dharmadhikari And G. S. Kulkarni, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Tejveer Singh For the Respondent : Mr. Soli E. Dastur, senior counsel with Mr. Niraj Sheth and Mr. B.G. Yewale i/b M/s. Rajesh Shah Co ORDER P. C. 1. This i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne of ₹ 244.93 crore and unabsorbed depreciation amounting to ₹ 2615.92 crore. The assessee has raised funds by way of FCCBs during the year under consideration. No investigation was carried out by the Assessing Officer to establish the name and address, genuineness and creditworthiness of the actual subscribers to such FCCBs in terms of section 68 of the Act. Mr. Tejveer Singh would submit that there is a clear reference made to a Circular and which Circular of the Revenue has been ignored by the Assessing Officer. He would also submit that this is not a case where the ingredients of section 263 are not attracted and in that regard our attention is invited to the discussion in the Tribunal's order on both the aforesaid item ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aphs 8.1 and 8.3 of the impugned order. 8. We have considered the rival contentions carefully. There is no reason to multiply this order with some decisions and reference to them in detail. Suffice it to state that Mr. Tejveer Singh relies on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Hindustan Lever Limited (2012) 343 ITR 161. 9. That decision refers to the assessment year 1998-99 where the assessee filed return of income of ₹ 661.15 crore and claimed deduction in the sum of ₹ 11.41 crore under section 80- I, ₹ 21,=8.62 crore under section 80-IA and ₹ 20.20 crore under section 80-HH. The Assessing Officer assessed the income under section 43(3) at ₹ 814.66 crore and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here was a general explanation given that the expenditure, namely, capital on scientific research had not been incurred at the undertakings and is not directly linked to the operations of the undertakings but the facts to the knowledge of the assessee were not revealed, then, that was no explanation at all. Once that was no explanation, much less acceptable, then, the Assessing Officer should not have proceeded on the lines indicated by the Commissioner as that was a complete error. That resulted in his order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. It is in dealing with that situation so also the contention raised by the assessee of having supplied the relevant details and giving a point to point reply that the obser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot be termed as erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The Commissioner of Income Tax was not, therefore, justified in invoking section 263 of the Act. 11. We are of the view that the Tribunal's order and conclusions are essentially on facts. They cannot be termed as perverse and after it adverted to the rival contentions and all the materials on record. The Tribunal's order cannot thus be held to be vitiated by an error of law apparent on the face of record so as to call for interference in our further appellate jurisdiction. The appeal, therefore, does not raise any substantial questions of law, but the attempt of the Revenue is to have a re-appreciation and reappraisal of the same factual materi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
