2001 (4) TMI 183 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal overturns CIT's revision of AO's orders, citing lack of justification under tax law.

Simbhaoli Industries Limited. Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax.

Simbhaoli Industries Limited. Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax. - ITD 078, 161, TTJ 072, 388, [2001] 251 ITR (A. T.) 35 (ITAT [Del]) Issues Involved:1. Whether an order u/s 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act can be revised by the Commissioner of Income-tax (CIT) u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Whether the amount of excise duty collected by the assessee in the respective assessment years and not paid due to a Stay Order by the Supreme Court is a trading receipt and liable to tax in the respective years u/s 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961.3. Whether the provision for interest payable on the amount of excise duty, in the event of an adverse judgment by the Supreme Court against the assessee, is allowable as a deduction in the years under consideration.Summary:Issue 1: Revision of Order u/s 143(1)(a) by CIT u/s 263The Tribunal examined whether an order u/s 143(1)(a) can be revised by the CIT u/s 263. The Tribunal noted that u/s 143(1)(a), the Assessing Officer (AO) is empowered to make prima facie adjustments for arithmetical errors or excess deductions but cannot go beyond these provisions. The CIT invoked u/s 263, claiming the AO's orders were erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. However, the Tribunal found that the AO had completed the assessments based on the returns and accompanying documents, and thus, the orders were not erroneous. The Tribunal emphasized that the CIT cannot enhance the scope of assessment u/s 143(1)(a) while invoking u/s 263. The Tribunal cited Circular No. 176, which states that no remedial action is necessary in summary assessment cases, and concluded that the CIT exceeded his jurisdiction. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT, which established that both conditions of an order being erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue must be met for u/s 263 to be invoked. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the CIT was not justified in invoking u/s 263.Issue 2: Taxability of Excise Duty Collected but Not PaidThis issue became academic as the primary issue was decided in favor of the assessee. However, the Tribunal noted that similar issues had been previously decided in favor of the assessee by different Benches of the Delhi Tribunal.Issue 3: Deduction for Provision of Interest on Excise DutySimilarly, this issue also became academic following the decision on the primary issue. The Tribunal mentioned that previous decisions had allowed the deduction for the provision of interest on excise duty.Conclusion:The appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 1986-87, 1987-88, and 1988-89 were allowed, with the Tribunal holding that the CIT was not justified in invoking u/s 263 to revise the AO's orders u/s 143(1)(a). The other issues were deemed academic and not addressed in detail as they had already been decided in favor of the assessee in previous cases.