2012 (3) TMI 501 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal upholds assessing authority's decision, quashes CIT's order, and remands for review.

M/s INFOSYS BPO Ltd. Versus. The Commissioner of Income-tax,

The Tribunal found that the assessing authority had considered the issues at length and applied relevant provisions correctly, concluding that the order ... Revision u/s 263 - computation of deduction u/s 10A - Held that:- We find that the assessee has raised various grounds of appeal before the CIT(A) including the setting off of brought forward losses from the total income before allowing deduction/exemption u/s 10A. The CIT(A) has observed that the assessment order has been set aside by the CIT u/s 263 and, therefore, it has become nonest. We are not able to agree with this finding of the CIT(A), as the order of the AO merges with the order of the CIT u/s 263 only on the issues considered by him in the proceedings u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act and not on the other issues which have not been considered by the CIT. Therefore, the assessee’s appeal against the order of the assessing authority on the issues not considered by the CIT u/s 263 will remain and the CIT(A) has to decide these issues in accordance with law. In view of the same, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) in dismissing the assessee’s appeal as infructuous and remand the issue to his file with a direction to decide the issues raised therein in accordance with law. Issues:1. Validity of proceedings under section 263 of the Income-tax Act.2. Merits of the direction of the CIT under section 263 of the Income-tax Act.3. Appeal against the order of the CIT(A) dismissing the appeal as infructuous.Issue 1: Validity of proceedings under section 263 of the Income-tax Act:The case involved appeals filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax - I in Bangalore under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Commissioner observed that the Assessing Officer had wrongly allowed the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 10A without setting off unabsorbed depreciation, resulting in excess allowance. The assessee argued that the assessing authority had extensively considered the issue and taken a possible view, making the order not erroneous. The High Court's decision in CIT Vs. Infosys Technologies Ltd. was cited to support this contention. The Tribunal found that the assessing authority had indeed considered the issue at length and applied relevant provisions correctly, leading to the conclusion that the order was not erroneous and could not be revised under section 263.Issue 2: Merits of the direction of the CIT under section 263 of the Income-tax Act:The CIT directed the Assessing Officer to make a fresh assessment order and allow deduction under section 10A correctly for the two units in accordance with the law. The assessee relied on a Tribunal decision in the case of M/s Manhattan Association (India) Development Centre Pvt. Ltd. to argue that deduction under section 10A should be allowed without setting off brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation of other units. The Departmental Representative supported the CIT's order, citing various Tribunal decisions. After hearing both parties, the Tribunal held that the assessing authority had correctly applied the provisions of the Act and quashed the CIT's order under section 263.Issue 3: Appeal against the order of the CIT(A) dismissing the appeal as infructuous:The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeal as infructuous due to the order under section 263 setting aside the assessment order. The Tribunal disagreed with the CIT(A)'s finding, stating that the order of the Assessing Officer merges with the CIT's order only on the issues considered in the section 263 proceedings. The Tribunal remanded the issue to the CIT(A) to decide the remaining issues raised in the appeal in accordance with the law. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessee were allowed.This detailed analysis of the judgment covers the issues involved in the case comprehensively, addressing the validity of proceedings under section 263, the merits of the CIT's direction, and the appeal against the CIT(A)'s decision.