High Court overturns ITAT decision, upholds CIT order, cites AO's errors under Section 80IA(9) and affirms Section 263 revision.

The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the ITAT's order and restoring the CIT's order. It held that the AO's actions were erroneous and prejudicial to revenue due to incorrect application of Section 80IA(9). The Court affirmed the CIT's exercise of revisional powers under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the relief granted under Section 80IA should be deducted from the profits and gains of the business before computing relief under Section 80HHC.
2. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) can exercise revisional powers under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when two views are possible on the interpretation of relevant provisions.
3. Whether the order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Deduction under Section 80IA and 80HHC:
The core issue revolves around the interpretation of Section 80IA(9) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which states that where any amount of profits and gains is claimed and allowed under Section 80IA, deduction to the extent of such profits and gains shall not be allowed under any other provisions of Chapter VI-A, including Section 80HHC. The CIT found that the AO had allowed deductions under both Sections 80IA and 80HHC without reducing the profits and gains on which deduction under Section 80IA had been allowed, resulting in excess deduction under Section 80HHC. This was deemed erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue as it contravened the provisions of Section 80IA(9).

2. Revisional Powers under Section 263:
The ITAT had allowed the appeal of the assessee by concluding that the AO had taken one of the possible views, which was in consonance with the views taken by several Benches of the Tribunals at the relevant time. The ITAT relied on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd., which held that if the AO adopts one of the courses permissible in law, the CIT cannot exercise his powers under Section 263 to differ with the view of the AO, even if there has been a loss of revenue. The Delhi High Court had emphasized that the mere absence of discussion in the assessment order does not imply that the AO had not applied his mind to the provisions.

3. Erroneous and Prejudicial Order:
The High Court examined whether the order passed by the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The Court noted that the assessment order dated 28.12.2006 allowed deductions under both Sections 80IA and 80HHC without reducing the profits and gains on which deduction under Section 80IA had been allowed. This was found to be in contravention of Section 80IA(9). The Court emphasized that the CIT's revisional powers under Section 263 were justified as the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The Court further referenced the judgment in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, which held that an incorrect application of law satisfies the requirement of the order being erroneous.

Conclusion:
The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order dated 29.04.2011 of the ITAT, and restored the order of the CIT dated 18.03.2009. The Court held that the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue due to the incorrect application of Section 80IA(9), and the CIT was justified in exercising revisional powers under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

---