TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (11) TMI 621
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... perused the relevant records. The relevant provisions of s. 263 of the IT Act can be gainfully reproduced as under: "263. (1) The CIT may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by the AO is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify, including an order enhancing or modifying the assessment, or cancelling the assessment and directing a fresh assessment. Explanation: For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that, for the purposes of this sub-section,- (a) an order passed on or before or after the 1st day of June, 1988 by the AO shall include- (i) an order of assessment made by the Asstt. CIT or Dy. CIT or the ITO on the basis of the Directions issued by the Jt. CIT under s. 144A; (ii) an order made by the Jt. CIT in exercise of the powers or in the performance of the functions of an AO conferred on, or assigned to, him under the orders or directions issued....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l satisfy the requirement of the order being erroneous. In the same category fall orders passed without applying the principles of natural justice or without application of mind. The phrase 'prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue' has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the AO. Every loss of revenue as a consequence of the order of the AO cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. For example, if the AO has adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue, or where two views are possible and the AO has taken one view with which the CIT does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, unless the view taken by the AO is unsustainable in law." 4. We now deal with issues addressed by the learned CIT as under: 5. Vacancy allowance: 5.1 On this issue, the learned CIT held that there is no dispute on the facts. He observed that the only issue to be decided is on the interpretation of s. 2(24)(ix) [sic-24(1)(ix)] as it existed for an earlier period i.e., asst. yr. 2001-02. He found that the law has been amended w.e.f. 1st April, 2002 and pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he order of the AO cannot be said to be erroneous if he follows the same as there is no change in the facts or law in the present assessment year. In this regard, we draw support from the decision of this Tribunal in ITA Nos. 1249 and 1250/Mad/2004 for asst. yrs. 2000-01 and 2002-03 in the case of Pathy Cine Enterprises (P) Ltd. vs. ITO. In this case, vide order dt. 17th March, 2006 following was observed: "In our opinion, when the nature of business and the method of accounting has been the same, the order of the AO on the lines as followed in earlier years cannot be said to be erroneous. It is true that there is no res judicata in the income-tax proceedings but there has to be a semblance of consistency. Further, the cash receipt in one lump sum as income cannot ipso facto mean that expenditure recorded is incorrect. Moreover, the expenditures incurred by the assessee have further been ignored due to the only reason that they are high as compared to the income. And the learned CIT(A) has put his own estimate of expenditure allowable as percentage of income. We find that there is no law in statute that expenditure has to be allowed as percentage of income. This is a mere sur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e had incurred loans and therefore it should be deemed to have paid tax on the agricultural income. We note that the learned CIT has already observed that the agricultural income includes sale of land and trees. The assessee has accepted this mistake. Hence, the final direction of the CIT to examine in detail all the issues relating to agricultural income and taxability of non-agricultural portion of income and computation of capital gains, if any, cannot be said to be improper. 8. Expenditure on leasehold property: 8.1 On this issue, the learned CIT noted that assessee has incurred a sum of Rs. 46,77,709 on account of furniture and furnishing in the leasehold property and the same was claimed as revenue expenditure. The said expenditure consisted of expenditure on partition work, false ceiling, indoor light fittings, light fixtures and lamps and network switches. The learned CIT referred to Expln. 1 to s. 32 of the IT Act. He concluded that expenditure incurred by the assessee in the above new asset was capital in nature. He directed the AO to examine this issue and arrive at the correct quantum and allow proper depreciation. 8.2 We have heard both the counsel and perused....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....computation of both the deductions. 9.3 We have heard both the counsel and perused the relevant records. In this regard, the assessee has submitted that, "In computing the relief under s. 80HHC whether relief under s. 80-IB should be deducted or not is a debatable one, on which two views are possible. In view of conflicting views, the issue was referred to Special Bench which was decided in the year 2007. Hence, this issue is not amenable to revision under s. 263." 9.4 Upon a careful consideration, we find that learned CIT's direction for de novo consideration in this regard cannot be said to be not proper as learned CIT has referred to certain important legal points and factual issues relating to sale to group concerns which should have been considered by the AO while granting the said deductions. However, as regards computation of relief under ss. 80HHC and 80-IB, with reference to provisions of s. 80-IA(9) are concerned, we are in agreement with the view that the issue was debatable. Hence, Special Bench of Tribunal was constituted later on this issue. Hence, on this aspect the revision order under s. 263 is not sustainable. Moreover, the issue now has been decided in f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubmission of the assessee that the learned CIT has merely expressed suspicion and surmises regarding P&L a/c. Accounts have been audited and admitted in the regular assessment and the order of the learned CIT is in the nature of a roving enquiry calling for second assessment without pointing out any error. Such directions are not permissible in an order of revision under s. 263. 10.4 We have heard both the counsel and perused the relevant records. We find that other than the item discussed hereinabove individually in paras 5 to 9, the learned CIT is merely putting his view that the assessed income is very low. There is no provision or precedent that after examining the various expenditure or items, the AO has to write in his order that he has examined the same, even if he docs not find anything adverse. In our opinion, the fact that the income is very low cannot be reason for assuming jurisdiction under s. 263 without pointing any particular infirmity found in the assessment order. In this regard, we place reliance upon Hon'ble Bombay High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Gabrial India Ltd. (1993) 114 CTR (Bom) 81 : (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) that, in the garb of exercising p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the CIT under s. 263 had to be exercised on the basis of the material that was available to him when he exercised the power." "The satisfaction of the CIT under s. 263 must be one which is objectively justifiable and cannot be the mere ipse dixit of the CIT." 10.8 In the background of aforesaid discussion and precedents, we hold that the learned CIT's direction to set aside the entire assessment and de novo consideration cannot be sustained except for the matters which c have been dealt by the learned CIT and adjudicated by us in the paras hereinabove. Hence, we sustain the order of the learned CIT under s. 263 on following aspects only (i) Vacancy allowance, (ii) Agricultural income, (iii) Expenditure on leasehold property, and (iv) Relief under ss. 80HHC and 80-IB. On the issue of computation of income from Adyar property and reconciliation of profits, we set aside the order of the learned CIT. 11. In the result, this appeal by the assessee is partly allowed. U.B.S. BEDI, J.M.: 4th Feb., 2009 12. Despite best p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ties. Even if the notional income is treated as receivable from them, the balance amount has to be allowed as irrecoverable under s. 24(x). Hence, the rental income assessed is proper and not erroneous." Whereas, the learned Departmental Representative relied upon the order of the learned CIT and pleaded that nowhere in response to notice under s. 263, the assessee took any plea that, this amount is being assessed in earlier years. So, this is a new plea having been raised, whereas, various Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Court decisions support the view taken by the learned CIT that minimum municipal valuation in such circumstances has to be adopted as annual letting value as provided under s. 23(1) of the IT Act, it was thus, pleaded for confirmation of the impugned order. 12.4 After having heard both the sides, considering the material on record, we find that s. 22 deals with income from house property and provides that the annual value of the property consisting of any building or lands appurtenant thereto of which the assessee is the owner, other than such portions of such property as he may occupy for the purposes of any business or profession carried on by him the profi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gment would have full force and accordingly the standard rent would determine the annual value for the purposes of the income-tax. Similarly, the Supreme Court has held in Dewan Daulat Rai Kapoor vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee (1980) 122 ITR 700 (SC) that the valuation for the purposes of the Municipal Act has also to be based on the self-same standard rent. This means that the Supreme Court by two separate judgments has made the basis of the valuation the same to the IT law and to the Municipal Act. The result is that we have no difficulty in answering the question referred to us which is whether the value adopted for municipal valuation has also to be adopted for the purposes of income-tax. On the above reasoning, these two have to be the same." 12.5 Considering the entirety of facts and circumstances, ratio of the above noted decisions and material on record, it is found that the assessee during the hearing as well as in the written submissions has pleaded for offering similar income in earlier years, but, before the learned CIT, in response to notice under s. 263, no such plea has been taken and before this Bench though plea has been taken, yet, the same has not been subs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se in interest cost of Rs. 11.45 crores, which has eaten away the operating profits. The increase in interest cost is attributable to increase in secured loans. Decrease in profit to the extent of Rs. 12.57 crores has been compensated by an increase in profit on sale of shares amounting to Rs. 10 crores, thereby reducing the decrease in profit to Rs. 2.57 crores." 13.1 The learned CIT while considering the details and reply of the assessee and discussing the matter at para 8.3 has concluded to pass following order in para 9. Paras 8.3 and 9 are reproduced as under: "8.3 On the perusal of the reply and the details submitted, the assessee is having more than two dozen divisions, each having a turnover of crores. For the first time at the time of revision petition hearing, they were asked to give division-wise P&L a/c and balance sheet. They have been now furnished. The assessee has never furnished such details earlier. These details need deep scrutiny for understanding the accounts of the assessee and then to reconcile the issue mentioned in the show-cause notice. As pointed out earlier in agricultural division, the assessee had shown sale price of land as agricultural income. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Employees' Welfare Fund No. 1 vs. ITO (1987) 27 TTJ (Pune) 64; (iii) Jhulelal Land Development Corporation vs. Dy. CIT (1996) 56 ITD 345 (Bom); (iv) Indexco International vs. Dy. CIT (2004) 89 TTJ (Mumbai) 56 : (2004) 88 ITD 293 (Mumbai). 3. Part of the order of the CIT which is not tenable for the reasons stated above, can be set aside while another part which is amenable to revision under s. 263 can be sustained. Chennai Tribunal order in the case of ICICI Bank Ltd. vs. Jt. CIT in ITA Nos. 817 and 818/Mad/2003, dt. 22nd June, 2007 [reported at (2008) 118 TTJ (Chennai) 132 : (2008) 10 DTR (Chennai)(Trib) 92-Ed.]." 13.3 The learned Departmental Representative submitted that in response to notice under s. 263 with regard to the above said issue, the assessee furnished various details and fresh documents in order to substantiate its claim in the return, which have been not at all furnished before the AO and no enquiry appears to have been made by the AO. Since these details and documents are numerous and in order to understand the accounts of the assessee and then to reconcile the issue mentioned in the show-cause notice and details submitted by the assessee, the learn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....without making, any inquiry. On these facts the conclusion that the order of the ITO was erroneous was irresistible. The High Court had rightly held that the exercise of jurisdiction by the CIT under s. 263(2) was justified." Yet, in the case of CIT vs. Kohinoor Tobacco Products (P) Ltd. (1998) 148 CTR (MP) 536 : (1998) 234 ITR 557 (M?), the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court has held as under: "...........This failure on the part of the AO to make necessary enquiry rendered the assessment erroneous and also prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue..........." Further, the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahavar Traders (1996) 220 ITR 167 (MP) has held as under: "Held, that the ITO should have examined the matter in the light of the conditions mentioned in both the sections before granting relief. The CIT had not given any finding but only remanded the case to the ITO for making assessment afresh. The Tribunal instead of approaching the matter in the proper perspective, had on their own started making enquiries and found that the order passed by the ITO was correct. This was erroneous. The order passed by the CIT was valid." Further, the Ho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s concerned, it is seen that at para 9.4 from line 6, following observations have been made by the learned AM in the proposed order: "...........However, as regards computation of relief under ss. 80HHC and 80-IB, with reference to provisions of s. 80-IA(9) are concerned, we are in agreement with the view that the issue was debatable. Hence, Special Bench of Tribunal was constituted later on this issue..........." 14.1 While concurring with the direction of the learned CIT to consider this issue de novo with the further direction to keep in mind the case laws of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, the above observation has been made. Since, no details have been given as to how the issue is debatable with reference to s. 80-IA(9), therefore, in my considered view, such observation is unnecessary and uncalled for, as such, while not agreeing with such observation, I fully agree with the conclusion drawn by the learned AM. REFERENCE UNDER S. 255(4) OF THE IT ACT, 1961 &....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erty was let out by the assessee on a monthly rental of Rs. 3,500 and hence the sum of Rs. 42,000 was offered for tax. The annual value fixed by the corporation of this property was Rs. 2,04,968 for the purpose of levy of property tax. It was observed by the CIT that the property was let out to a group concern viz., MCC Finance Ltd. Therefore, the rental received by the assessee was not determined on arm's length basis. According to him, the minimum ALV that could be adopted was Rs. 2,04,968. Accordingly, he directed the AO to examine this issue from all angles, keeping in view the provisions of ss. 23 and 24 of the Act. 4. The learned AM upheld the contention of the assessee on the ground that the value of Rs. 42,000 was accepted by the Revenue in the earlier years. Relying on the decision of the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Pathy Cine Enterprises (P) Ltd. (ITA Nos. 1249 and 1250/Mad/2004, dt. 17th March, 2006), the learned AM held that though the principle of res judicata was not applicable to income-tax proceedings, consistency should be maintained when there is no change in facts. On the other hand, the learned JM referred to the provisions of s. 23(1) and al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....JM. So far as the claim of loss under s. 24 is concerned, the said issue is not before me and as a Third Member I cannot enlarge the scope of the matter beyond what is referred to the Third Member. In any case, while setting aside the matter, the CIT has given appropriate directions to the AO to examine the issue from all angles keeping in view the provisions of ss. 23 and 24 and hence no further adjudication on this point is required. 8. Reconciliation of profits: In the show-cause notice issued under s. 263 of the Act, the CIT requested the assessee to explain that in spite of additional extraordinary income of more than Rs. 8 crores, why the total income has come down especially when compared to the immediate previous year. The assessee explained that there was increase in the operating profit by Rs. 1.08 crores and also there was considerable reduction of Rs. 1.0 1 crores in the expenditure for self-consumption. There was also a fall in the non-cash expenses like depreciation and write off of miscellaneous expenses. All these had resulted in an increase in cash profit by Rs. 3.63 crores. At the same time, it was explained that administrative expenses and interest costs ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the ease of Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal vs. CIT 1973 CTR (SC) 107 : (1973) 88 ITR 323 (SC) and in the case of CIT vs. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products & Camphor Works (1997) 143 CTR (SC) 406 : (1998) 231 ITR 53 (SC). 11. I have duly considered the rival contentions and the material on record. The perception of the CIT that the profit is low prompted him to issue show-cause notice to the assessee. Profit before taxation of the company as a whole for the year under consideration is Rs. 3,303.42 lakhs as compared to Rs. 3,561.15 lakhs for the immediate preceding year. Thus, there is a fall in profits by Rs. 257.73 lakhs. On the other hand, the total revenue has increased from Rs. 1,93,946.48 lakhs to Rs. 2,19,195.88 lakhs. The report of the directors mentions that barring a couple of divisions, the overall performance was good. The directors also considered it to be a notable achievement that the company crossed the Rs. 2,000 crores turnover mark. In such a high volume consisting of thousands of crores, from the annual accounts of the company I am unable to comprehend about which additional extraordinary income of more than Rs. 8 crores the CIT is talking about. Be that as it....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to be NO in block letters. In the case of CIT vs. Kanda Rice Mills (1990) 85 CTR (P&H) 5 : (1989) 178 ITR 446 (P&H), the Punjab & Haryana High Court held that mere observation by the CIT in his order that these were the points which deserved consideration, was beyond the provisions of s. 263. In the instant case also, the CIT wants the AO to make the assessment in a particular manner. Madras High Court, in the case of CIT vs. Sakthi Charities (2000) 160 CTR (Mad) 107 held that the power of revision is not meant to be exercised for the purpose of directing the AO to hold another investigation when the order of the officer is not found to be erroneous. And it is in this context that the Bombay High Court held in the case of CIT vs. Gabrial India Ltd. (1993) 114 CTR (Bom) 81 : (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) that in the garb of exercising power under s. 263, the CIT cannot initiate proceedings with a view to starting fishing and roving enquiry in matters or orders which are already concluded. It is well established that an order cannot be termed as erroneous unless it is not in accordance with law. Thus, if the AO has made the assessment by making such enquiries as he deemed fit, the order c....