TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 461X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce on record has allowed depreciation on intangible assets and the CIT (Appeals) while passing the order u/s 263 has held that the enquiry and verification made by the AO is inadequate and the land cannot be treated as intangible asset. Powers u/s 263 of the Act has been exercised and the order of the AO has been set aside. The Tribunal has held that mere inadequacy of an enquiry or insufficiency of material on record cannot be a ground to invoke powers under Section 263 of the Act. The view taken by the Tribunal is in consonance with well settled legal principles referred to supra. - Decided against revenue. - I.T.A. NO. 115 OF 2012 - - - Dated:- 5-10-2020 - THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE And THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A notice was issued to the assessee under Section 143(2) of the Act. The Assessing Officer allowed depreciation at 25% on the right to lease hold land, which was classified as an intangible asset by the assessee. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) initiated proceedings under Section 263 of the Act and directed the Assessing Officer to redo the assessment in the light of observations made in the order. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short). The Tribunal by an order dated 28.12.2011 allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee. In the aforesaid factual background,, this appeal has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the reven ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isdiction under Section 263 of the Act firstly, the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous and secondly, that it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue on account of error in the order of assessment. 6. The aforesaid provision was considered by the Supreme Court in MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD.I supra and it was held that the phrase 'prejudicial to the interests of the revenue' has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the Assessing Officer and every loss of revenue as a consequence of the order of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. It was further held that where two views are possible and the Income Tax Officer has taken one view with which the Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
