Tribunal remands issues for fresh adjudication, ensuring assessee's right to be heard.

M/s. JS. Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Versus Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax

M/s. JS. Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Versus Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax - TMI Issues Involved:
1. Initiation of reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Disallowance of deduction under Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act.
3. Principle of Consistency in granting deduction under Section 80IA.
4. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act.
5. Charging of interest under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Initiation of Reassessment Proceedings under Section 147:
The assessee contended that the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 were erroneous since the original assessment had been completed under Section 143(3) and all facts were on record. However, this ground was not pressed by the assessee, hence it did not require adjudication.

2. Disallowance of Deduction under Section 80IA:
The primary issue was the disallowance of Rs. 47,77,883 claimed under Section 80IA for the operation and maintenance of infrastructural facilities at Nagapattinam Sea Port, Tamil Nadu. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the deduction due to the absence of a certificate from the Port Authority confirming that the warehouse formed part of the Port. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance, stating that the necessary certificate was not furnished despite multiple opportunities.

3. Principle of Consistency in Granting Deduction under Section 80IA:
The assessee argued that the deduction under Section 80IA had been consistently allowed in previous years, and the AO did not provide any cogent reason for deviating from this practice. The CIT(A) noted that a certificate from the Port Authority was mandatory as per CBDT Circular No. 10/2005, which the assessee failed to provide.

4. Disallowance under Section 14A:
The assessee contested the disallowance of Rs. 3,78,902 under Section 14A, arguing that no exempt income was earned during the year, and the investments were made from accumulated reserves and surpluses. The Tribunal directed the AO to reconsider this issue, taking into account the judgments cited by both parties, including the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT vs. Holcim India (P) Ltd., which held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot be made if there is no exempt income.

5. Charging of Interest under Section 234B:
The assessee claimed that interest under Section 234B was wrongly charged as the estimation of current income was based on previous assessments where deduction under Section 80IA was allowed. The Tribunal noted that this issue was consequential in nature and should be recalculated based on the final assessment.

Admission of Additional Evidence:
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence under Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, which included certificates from the Tamil Nadu Maritime Board obtained after the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of natural justice and remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication, allowing the AO to examine the new evidence and provide an opportunity for rebuttal to the Revenue Department.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the issues back to the AO for fresh adjudication, ensuring due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, and the Tribunal's findings in ITA No. 1712/D/2013 were applied mutatis mutandis to ITA No. 1713/D/2013.