Revision u/s 263 quashed as AO's view on CSR donation deduction u/s 80G held legally sustainable

The ITAT set aside the PCIT's order passed u/s 263, holding that the assessment was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The assessee had furnished complete details of the donation claimed u/s 80G, including recipient details, banking records and a valid 80G certificate, which the AO duly examined before allowing the deduction, even though the payment formed part of CSR expenditure. Given the existence of divergent judicial views on allowability of 80G deduction for CSR-related donations, the AO's acceptance of the claim was a possible and legally tenable view. Consequently, invocation of revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 was held unjustified and the assessee's appeal was allowed.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1.1 Whether the conditions for valid assumption of revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were satisfied in respect of the assessment order allowing deduction under Section 80G on a payment forming part of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) expenditure.

1.2 Whether the assessment order could be termed "erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue" where (a) the Assessing Officer had made inquiries and applied his mind to the allowability of deduction under Section 80G, and (b) two plausible legal views existed on the allowability of deduction under Section 80G in respect of CSR expenditure.

1.3 Whether the mere existence of a contrary legal view of the Principal Commissioner on the eligibility of CSR-related donations for deduction under Section 80G justified interference under Section 263.

---

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 & 2: Validity of revision under Section 263 in light of inquiries made by the Assessing Officer and existence of two views on deduction under Section 80G for CSR expenditure

(a) Legal framework as discussed

2.1 The Tribunal proceeded on the settled principle that for valid exercise of jurisdiction under Section 263, the assessment order must be both "erroneous" and "prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue". A mere loss of revenue is not sufficient if the Assessing Officer has adopted one of the courses permissible in law.

2.2 The Tribunal referred to the principle laid down in the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Max India Ltd., that where two views are possible and the Assessing Officer has taken one such view, the revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 cannot be exercised merely because the Commissioner prefers another view.

2.3 The Tribunal noted that there were divergent judicial views on allowability of deduction under Section 80G where the payment formed part of CSR expenditure, with some Co-ordinate Benches allowing such deduction and another Bench taking a contrary view. The Principal Commissioner himself recorded that the Department had appealed against Tribunal orders favourable to the assessee before the jurisdictional High Court.

(b) Interpretation and reasoning

2.4 On facts, the Tribunal found that the assessment order was passed after the Faceless Assessing Officer had issued a notice under Section 142(1), specifically calling for details of donations and the exemption certificate under Section 80G. In response, the assessee had furnished:

* Details of donation of Rs.30,00,000/- to a specified foundation,

* Bank statement evidencing the payment, and

* A valid certificate under Section 80G in favour of the assessee.

2.5 From the cumulative assessment of the record, the Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had examined the necessary conditions under Section 80G before allowing the deduction and had taken a conscious view. It was therefore not a case of lack of inquiry or perfunctory inquiry.

2.6 The Tribunal observed that at the relevant time, there existed two plausible legal views on the question whether donations forming part of CSR expenditure could qualify for deduction under Section 80G. Co-ordinate Benches, including the Kolkata Bench in JMS Mining (P.) Ltd., had taken a view favourable to the assessee, while the Delhi Bench in Agilent Technologies (International) (P.) Ltd. had taken a contrary position. The Principal Commissioner had acknowledged such conflicting views in the impugned order.

2.7 In this backdrop, the Tribunal reasoned that:

* The Assessing Officer had adopted one of the possible, legally sustainable views on the interpretation of Section 80G vis-à-vis CSR expenditure; and

* The mere fact that the Principal Commissioner disagreed with that view, or preferred another legal interpretation, did not render the assessment order "erroneous" within the meaning of Section 263.

2.8 The Tribunal reaffirmed that revision under Section 263 is not justified where the Assessing Officer has conducted inquiries and taken a plausible view which is not shown to be perverse or contrary to law, even if the decision has revenue implications.

(c) Conclusions

2.9 The Tribunal held that:

* The assessment order allowing deduction under Section 80G on the amount of Rs.15,00,000/- linked to CSR expenditure was passed after proper inquiry and application of mind by the Assessing Officer;

* Given the existence of divergent judicial views on the allowability of such deduction, the view taken by the Assessing Officer constituted one of the possible views in law; and

* Consequently, the assessment order could not be treated as "erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue" merely because the Principal Commissioner held a different legal opinion.

2.10 The Tribunal therefore concluded that the assumption of jurisdiction by the Principal Commissioner under Section 263 was invalid. The impugned revision order was set aside and the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed.

---