TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1158X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... each the conclusion that the assessment order was erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue because firstly, there is no finding that the GTD activity expenses were not for furtherance of the aims and objects of the assessee society or that the assessment order is erroneous for any reasons to be recorded by the Ld. CIT(E). For want of an enquiry to reach such a conclusion we find it difficult to sustain the impugned order in so far as GTD expenses are concerned. Exemption on the principal of mutuality denied - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Coming to the aspect of the computation error adverted to by the CIT(E) in respect of the denial of exemption the contention of the assessee is that the assessee was not given an opportunity of being heard on this aspect and there was no such mention in the notice issued to the assessee u/s 263 of the Act. On a perusal of the copy, notice that Page No. 36 of the paper book, we find that there is no reference to this computational error and the record does not reveal that the CIT(E) had given any opportunity to the assessee to explain this aspect. Obligation to give an opportunity to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y not proper enquiry made by the Ld. Assessing Officer on that aspect. Ld.CIT(A), therefore, after hearing the assessee, recorded a finding that the assessment order was erroneous inasmuch as it is a prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue for non-consideration of the allowability of the GTD expenses after due verification. Ld.CIT(A) further observed that though the Assessing Officer had denied the assessee s claim of exemption of income to the tune of ₹ 8,32,29,451/- on account of principal of mutuality, he failed to give effect thereto in the computation of income and erroneously computed the sum at ₹ 12,14,81,569/- as against ₹ 14,67,57,376/-. On these two grounds Ld.CIT(A) set aside the matter to the file of the Ld. Assessing Officer to exempt the issue of admissibility of GTD expenses afresh and the compute the income correctly. 5. The assessee is, therefore, aggrieved of the impugned order and challenged the same before us in this appeal stating that the Assessing Officer had already examined the issue relating to the allowability of GTD expenses and computed the assessed income of the assessee correctly. It is stated that the assessee incu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers to maintain enhance the business image of India and establishment of the India brand to facilitate opening up of international markets and to provide a level playing ground to India companies competing for international business, with large multinationals in the Indian market place. 8. Further, purpose of such expenditure and the benefits derivable there from is aimed at benefitting L.C.T Business Process Management (BPM) industry as a whole, which not denotes the member fraternity of the assessee, but also the industry at large in India. The monetary in principal support to GTD activity by Government of India clearly establish the utility of such expenses for the India I.T Industry as a whole. 9. It is further noteworthy that for the years early to the Assessment Year 2010-11 and subsequent to 2012-13 such an expensewas allowed without raising any query. The assessment order for the Assessment Year 2012-13 was passed on 9/2/2015 and it was available before the Ld. CIT(E) when she passed the order u/s 263 for the Assessment Year 2010-11. So also, when the Assessment Orders for the Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 were passed on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Assessing Officer to decide whether the findings recorded are erroneous. In cases where there is inadequate enquiry but not lack of enquiry, again the CIT must give and record a finding that the order/inquiry made is erroneous. This can happen if an enquiry and verification is conducted by the CIT and he is able to establish and show the error or mistake made by the Assessing Officer, making the order unsustainable in Law. In some cases possibly though rarely, the CIT can also show and establish that the facts on record or inferences drawn from facts on record per se justified and mandated further enquiry or investigation but the Assessing Officer had erroneously not undertaken the same. However, the said finding must be clear, unambiguous and not debatable. The matter cannot be remitted for a fresh decision to the Assessing Officer to conduct further enquiries without a finding that the order is erroneous. Finding that the order is erroneous is a condition orrequirement which must be satisfied for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act. In such matters, to remand the matter/issue to the Assessing Officer would imply and mean the CIT has not examined and decided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the exercise u/s 263 of the Act could not have been outsourced by the CIT(A) to A.O and instead of directing the A.O to verify the correctness of the client of the assessee, the CIT himself should have undertaken an enquiry and give reasons for coming to the conclusion that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 15. In these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the Ld. CIT(A)(E) in this matter did not undertake the exercise of enquiry required to reach the conclusion that the assessment order was erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue because firstly, there is no finding that the GTD activity expenses were not for furtherance of the aims and objects of the assessee society or that the assessment order is erroneous for any reasons to be recorded by the Ld. CIT(E). For want of an enquiry to reach such a conclusion we find it difficult to sustain the impugned order in so far as GTD expenses are concerned. 16. Now, coming to the aspect of the computation error adverted to by the ld. CIT(E) in respect of the denial of exemption of ₹ 8,32,29,451/-,the conten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
