2018 (5) TMI 1154 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal rules in favor of appellant, setting aside revisional jurisdiction under section 263.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant in a case challenging the invocation of revisional jurisdiction under section 263 by the Ld. Commissioner of ... Revision u/s 263 - AO assessed the rental income as Business Income - Held that:- AO, with due application of mind, accepted the stand of the assessee and took one of the possible view in the matter and assessed the rental income as Business Income. This being the case, the order could not be said to be erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue so as to justify invocation of proceedings u/s 263. The action of AO, may be prejudicial to the revenue but the same could not be termed as erroneous since the view taken by him was one of the possible view with due application of mind. Therefore, the prime twin conditions viz. erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, in our opinion, have remained unfulfilled and therefore, invocation of proceeding u/s 263 was not justified. - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:1. Invocation of revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax.2. Classification of income from sub-letting and maintaining a guest house.3. Assessment of let-out income from office premises.4. Legality of the order passed.Issue 1: Invocation of revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax:The appeal contested the invocation of revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax for the Assessment Year 2009-10. The grounds of appeal included errors in passing the order under section 263, misinterpretation of provisions of the Income Tax Act, and incorrect directions given by the Commissioner. The appellant argued that the order should not have been passed based on the circumstances of the case.Issue 2: Classification of income from sub-letting and maintaining a guest house:The dispute arose regarding the classification of income from sub-letting and maintaining a guest house at 'Kailash Bunglow.' The Commissioner directed the Assessing Officer to assess this income as Income from House Property instead of under Income from Business and Profession. The appellant contended that the income had been consistently declared and assessed as Income from Business in previous years, and depreciation on improvements had been claimed and allowed. The appellant sought to quash the Commissioner's direction.Issue 3: Assessment of let-out income from office premises:Another issue involved the assessment of let-out income from three office premises situated in 'Labella.' The Commissioner directed the Assessing Officer to assess this income as Income from House Property, contrary to the appellant's claim that these were business assets on which depreciation had been consistently claimed and allowed. The appellant argued that the Commissioner's direction was incorrect and needed to be quashed.Issue 4: Legality of the order passed:The final issue questioned the legality of the order passed, alleging that it was contrary to the provisions of the Income Tax Act. The appellant challenged the jurisdiction of the Commissioner under section 263, arguing that the Assessing Officer had taken a possible view with due application of mind during the assessment proceedings.In the detailed analysis, the Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had accepted the appellant's stand and assessed the rental income as Business Income after considering all relevant details and justifications provided by the appellant. The Tribunal concluded that the Assessing Officer had taken a possible view with due application of mind, and the order could not be deemed erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the invocation of proceedings under section 263, ruling in favor of the appellant and allowing the appeal.