9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 417X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s./2016 by the assessee are directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(A)-15, Chennai dated 18.11.2015 passed consequent to order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s.263 of the Act pertaining to assessment year 2003-04. Since issues involved in both the Assessee's appeals are common in nature, these appeals are clubbed together, heard together, disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. Originally, the AO while framing the assessment order u/s.143(3) of the Act vide order dated 31.03.2006 allowed professional charges incurred for the issue of optionally fully convertible debentures at `40 lakhs. According to CIT in his order dated 28.03.2008 passed u/s.263 of the Act observed that the said expenditure is a ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reliance in the judgment of Apex Court in the case of India Cements Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 60 ITR 52 SC and the judgment of Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Vs. L&T Infrastructure Development Projects Ltd. in TC No.87/2010 dated 03.06.2013. 3.1 Regarding invoking the provisions of the section 263 of the Act, in our opinion, this is covered against the assessee by judgment in the case of Siemens Engineering and Manufacturing Ltd Vs. UOI reported in AIR 1976 SC 1785. It is settled law that while making assessment on assessee, the ITO acts in a quasi-judicial capacity. An assessment order is amenable to appeal by the assessee and to revision by the Commissioner under Sections 263 and 264. Therefore, a re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or of fact on the face of it. (ii) The order sought to be revised proceeds on incorrect assumption of facts or incorrect application of law. In the same category fall orders passed without applying the principles of natural justice or without application of mind. (iii) The order passed by the Assessing Officer is a stereotype order which simply accepts what the assessee has stated in his return or where he fails to make the requisite enquiries or examine the genuineness of the claim which is called for in the circumstances of the case. In view of this, exercising jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act by CIT is justified. However, on merit, the issue in dispute with regard to the expenditure incurred for issue of debenture was come before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Industries Ltd. v. CIT reported in [1999] 236 ITR 577 (Cal), whereunder it is held that there is no distinction between discount and premium, the discount on debentures as well as the premium payable on actual redemption on debentures in future years and the expenditure incurred for issue of such debentures are all held to be revenue expenditure, entitled to be spread over the period of debentures and consequently, allowable as deduction in a particular assessment year." In view of this on merit, the issue is remitted back to the file of ld. Assessing Officer to decide afresh in the light of above judgement of jurisdictional High Court. 4. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
