TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (1) TMI 847
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Ld. CIT, Bhubaneswar in invoking his powers u/s. 263 of the Act to revise the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act allowing the assessee's claim of deduction u/s. 80IA(4) of the Act. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that for the AY 2006-07, the original assessment order came to be passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 12.11.2008 and for AY 2007-08 on 02.12.2009. It was the submission that in the course of the original assessment, the AO had called for the explanation of the assessee along with proof in respect of its claim of deduction u/s. 80IA(4) of the Act. It was the submission that the assessee had replied vide its letter dated 12.11.2009 and 18.08.2008. It was the submission that discussion on the same had also been done in the course of the assessment as was evidenced in the order sheet noting. The Ld. AR drew our attention to pages 15 to 18 of the paper book and pages 34 to 42 of the paper book, which were the copies of the replies filed by the assessee before the AO in the course of the original assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act for both the assessment years. He also drew our attention to the order sheet noting at pages 36 to 39 of the paper book. The Ld. AR further....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....opinion on the basis of the explanation given by the assessee and this information having not been shown to be wrong, a change of opinion by the Ld. CIT did not give the Ld. CIT the powers to invoke the provisions of section 263 to revise the assessment. The Ld. AR drew our attention to the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gokuldas Exports & Ors. reported in (2011) 333 ITR 214 (Kar.) wherein it has been held that where two views are possible and one view has been adopted by the AO then the existence of another view alone would not be sufficient to exercise the powers u/s. 263 of the Act by the CIT. It was the submission that the AO had after examination drawn a conclusion that the assessee was entitled to the deduction u/s. 80IA(4) of the Act and this being one of the two views possible the Ld. CIT should not invoke his powers u/s. 263 just because he was of the opinion that another view was possible. 6. It was the submission that the assessee is doing the business of laying of railway tracks, bridges thereof as also building roads. It was the submission that as per the Explanation to section 80IA(4), the assessee was doing the business of deve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d prejudicial to the interest of revenue and the order of the Ld. CIT in revising the order u/s. 263 of the Act was liable to be upheld. 8. We have heard rival submissions. At the out set, it may be mentioned here that the submissions by the Ld. CIT, DR that the Act does not provide in the provisions of section 263 that it is the CIT who has to give sign the show cause notice is accepted. This is because as per the provisions of section 263 the assessee needs only to be given intimation as to the issues on which the Ld. CIT is proposing to revise the order passed by the AO. The view that a show cause notice need not to be signed by the Ld. CIT u/s. 263 is supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Asish Rajpal reported in (2010) 320 ITR 674 as also the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of reported in CIT Vs. Electro House (1971) 82 ITR 824 and in the case of reported in Gita Devi Aggarwal Vs. CIT (1970) 76 ITR 496. 9. Now, coming to the merits as also the submissions as made by the assessee. Admittedly, the AO in the course of original assessment proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Act has called for the explanation of the assessee as also dir....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0IA(4) of the Act becomes otiose. This is as explanation to section 80IA(4) of the Act specifically provides for the road to include a toll road, a bridge or a rail system. BOT contract in respect of the railway system can never exist. Further, a perusal of the provisions of section 80IA of the Act shows that the term 'works contract' is not defined in the said section. However, the terms 'works' and 'contract' is defined in the provisions of section 194C of the Act. If a particular word or term is not defined in the specific section then, one could go to other sections in the said Act where the definition would be available to draw a meaning to the said terms. In the provisions of section 194C of the Act, work has been given an inclusive definition but in the subsequent portion it has excluded the manufacturing or supplying a product according to requirement or specification of a customer by using material purchased from a person other than such customer. As has been specified by the Ld. AR, the assessee is doing contract work but that work is according to the requirement and specification of the customer and the same has been done by using materials purchase from third parties ot....