Commissioner's Section 263 action overturned as Assessing Officer's decision lawful. No revenue prejudice.

The Tribunal held that the Commissioner's action under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act was not justified as the Assessing Officer had taken a possible view in law, and the issue was already subject to appeal. The Tribunal found that the assessment order did not cause any prejudice to the revenue. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the Commissioner's order and allowed the appeal of the assessee, resulting in no addition and no tax liability.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of the Commissioner's action under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Computation of short-term capital gain and its adjustability against brought forward depreciation losses.
3. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner under Section 263 when the issue was already subject to appeal.
4. Impact of the assessment order on the revenue.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legitimacy of the Commissioner's Action under Section 263:

The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner dated 31st March 2011, passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2005-06. The Commissioner had taken cognizance under Section 263 and set aside the order of the Assessing Officer (AO) on the grounds that it was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Commissioner found that the AO had incorrectly allowed the adjustment of carried forward depreciation losses against short-term capital gains, which was not permissible under the Act.

2. Computation of Short-Term Capital Gain and its Adjustability Against Brought Forward Depreciation Losses:

The assessee had purchased a windmill for Rs. 2,29,60,000 in Assessment Year 1997-98 and sold it in Assessment Year 2005-06 for the same amount. The assessee had claimed depreciation of Rs. 1,14,80,000 in Assessment Year 2002-03. The AO disallowed the setting off of capital gain against brought forward depreciation losses, stating that there is no provision under the Act to absorb carried forward depreciation from the current year's capital gain. The Commissioner found that the AO had committed an error by accepting the assessee's computation of capital gain at Rs. 1,14,80,000, which was not in accordance with Section 50(1) of the Act.

3. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner under Section 263 When the Issue Was Already Subject to Appeal:

The assessee argued that the issue of computation of short-term capital gain and its adjustability against brought forward depreciation losses was already examined by the AO and was subject to appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Therefore, the Commissioner could not take action under Section 263 on this issue. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, stating that for setting off or telescoping of any amounts, the AO would first verify the amounts which can be set off with each other. Since the computation of short-term capital gain was one of the components for verifying this factor, the AO had applied his mind and taken a possible view after examining the returns of the assessee for earlier years.

4. Impact of the Assessment Order on the Revenue:

The assessee contended that even if the Commissioner's view was accepted, the net result would be no addition and no tax liability, as the depreciation thrust upon the assessee would only swell the losses in those years, and the assessee would have a higher figure of losses to be carried forward. The Tribunal noted that the total brought forward losses would be more than the sale proceeds of the windmill, resulting in a net zero effect. Therefore, even if the AO's order was erroneous, it was not prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Tribunal cited the Karnataka High Court's decision in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. D.G. Gopala Godwa, which held that the revisional authority must demonstrate how the erroneous order is prejudicial to the revenue.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner was not justified in taking action under Section 263, as the AO had taken a possible view in law and the issue was already subject to appeal. Additionally, the assessment order did not cause any prejudice to the revenue. Therefore, the Tribunal quashed the order of the Commissioner and allowed the appeal of the assessee. The order was pronounced in the open court on 10-06-2015.

---