2017 (1) TMI 1660 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal rules in favor of appellant in disputed tax assessment case, citing compliance with Apex Court.

The Tribunal held in favor of the appellant, ruling that the Commissioner of Income-tax (CIT) erred in challenging the Assessing Officer's order under ... Revision u/s 263 - allowability to the claim of leave encashment - HELD THAT:- We have noticed that while making the claim, the assessee has paid the tax in accordance with the direction of Hon’ble Apex Court in M/S EXIDE INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANR. [2009 (5) TMI 894 - SUPREME COURT]. AO examined the allowability to the claim of leave encashment. During the assessment, the assessee furnished the sufficient information vide reply dated 22.12.2011. The AO passed the order after considering the submission in reply dated 22.12.2011. As the assessee has already paid the tax before filing of the return of income. The order is not prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Malabar Industrial Company vs. CIT [2000 (2) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT] held that Commissioner has jurisdiction to revise the assessment order if twin conditions as provided in section 263 are fulfilled i.e. the order is not only erroneous but prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, both twin conditions are essential perquisite. Order passed by AO is not prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, as the assessee has already paid the tax on the provisions for leave encashment. Thus, as per our considered opinion, the order passed by CIT was not warranted. Thus, we hold that the order passed by AO was in order. - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:1. Jurisdiction of CIT under section 263 of the Income-Tax Act.2. Disallowance of provision for leave encashment by the Assessing Officer.3. Adequacy of disclosure by the assessee regarding provision for leave encashment.4. Prejudice to the interest of Revenue in the assessment order.Jurisdiction of CIT under section 263 of the Income-Tax Act:The appeal was against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (CIT) under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, challenging the CIT's jurisdiction. The appellant contended that the CIT erred in holding the AO's order under section 143(3) as erroneous without proper appreciation of facts. The appellant argued that all relevant facts were disclosed to the AO during assessment proceedings, making the CIT's order invalid. The CIT directed the AO to disallow the provision for leave encashment, which the appellant claimed was already allowed by the AO after due examination. The appellant emphasized that taxes were paid and deductions were correctly claimed. The Tribunal held that the AO's order was not prejudicial to the Revenue's interest as the appellant had paid taxes based on the Apex Court's directions.Disallowance of provision for leave encashment by the Assessing Officer:The case involved the disallowance of the provision for leave encashment by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 143(3) and the subsequent direction by the CIT to re-frame the order for disallowance. The appellant argued that the AO had already allowed the claim after thorough examination and that the order was not prejudicial to the Revenue. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had paid taxes as per the Apex Court's directions and provided sufficient information during assessment. As the AO's order was not found to be prejudicial to the Revenue's interest, the Tribunal held in favor of the appellant.Adequacy of disclosure by the assessee regarding provision for leave encashment:The appellant contended that they had made adequate disclosures regarding the provision for leave encashment in the return of income. The AO had raised specific queries during scrutiny, and the appellant had provided detailed submissions referencing relevant legal decisions. The appellant argued that the order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the Revenue's interest, as taxes were paid before filing the return of income. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's arguments, emphasizing that the order was in compliance with the requirements of the law.Prejudice to the interest of Revenue in the assessment order:The Tribunal referred to the Malabar Industrial Company case and highlighted that for the CIT to revise an assessment order under section 263, the order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue's interest. In this case, the Tribunal found that the AO's order was not prejudicial to the Revenue as the appellant had paid taxes on the provision for leave encashment. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the CIT's order was not warranted, and the AO's order was upheld. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.