2017 (11) TMI 1710

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pondent - assessee relinquished or surrendered its right, title and interest in favour of the other company which was a part of the joint venture. The consideration was received in the sum of Rs. 43,52,50,000/. 2 While filing return for the assessment year 2008-2009, the respondent - assessee claimed that the liability for payment of income tax is not attracted. The said contention of the respondent - assessee was accepted by the Assessing Officer while passing an order under SubSection (3) of Section 143 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the said Act of 1961"). An order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act was passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax. The grounds on which the order under Section 263 was passed read thus : " Aft .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 263. 4 The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant - revenue is that the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous which is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. He submitted that this was a case where the view taken by the Assessing Officer was erroneous and therefore, interference by the Appellate Tribunal is uncalled for. He would, therefore, submit that substantial question of law arises in this Appeal. 5 We have considered the submissions. In paragraph 9.1, the Appellate Tribunal has held thus : "9.1 A perusal of the assessment order clearly shows that the AO has given a categorical finding that the assessee is not doing any business activity during the year under consideration. The AO has also specifical .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... en an Income Tax Officer adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue or where two views are possible and the Income Tax Officer has taken one view with which the Ld. Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an order which is erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of Revenue unless the view taken by the Income Tax Officer is unsustainable in law." 6 The Appellate Tribunal while noting the facts has noted that in the scrutiny assessment under subsection (3) of Section 143 of the Income Tax Act for the year 2006-2007 it was accepted that the respondent - assessee has not carried out any business activity and the business expenditure claimed in that year was disallowed. We may note here t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X