AI Drafter 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 863
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....refore, the revision order is bad in law. 3. The ld. CIT erred in invoking the provisions of sec.263 merely on the basis of change of opinion. 4. The ld. CIT grossly erred in holding that depreciation was not allowable though assets were used for earning lease rent. 5. The ld. CIT erred in holding that interest expense of Rs. 2,84,95,000/- was not allowable ignoring the fact that this expense pertained to the loan taken for acquiring the assets which were leased out. 6. The ld. CIT further erred in holding that expenses on salary and wages and administrative expenses were wrongly allowed without appreciating that these expenses were small and incurred on day to day activity of the appellant. 7. The ld. CIT grossly erred in exercising power u/s 263 though the assessment order was not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and the issues considered by him were highly debatable and hence not within the purview of section 263 of the Act. 8. The above Grounds of Appeal are without prejudice to one another. 9. The Appellant craves leave to revise, modify, alter or delete any of the above Grounds of Appeal or to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he attention of the Assessing Officer in any manner. No query whatsoever was raised in this regard. The Ld. Commissioner further observed that on examination of records, it was seen that despite not having any business activity, the assessee had claimed several expenses viz. salary and wages, administrative expenses, interest, depreciation, etc. which were prima-facie not admissible. The expenses were routinely allowed without any application of mind. In short, the Ld. Commissioner alleged that assessment suffers from the vice of non-application of mind. As a result the returned income was assessed as it was i.e., under the wrong head and without any enquiry also by erroneously allowing the assessee the benefit of set-off of carry forward business losses which it was not entitled to. 4. In view of the aforesaid failures on the part of the Assessing Officer as alleged, the assessment order dated 19.11.2010 passed under section 143(3) of the Act was considered to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue by the Commissioner. Accordingly, the notice under section 263 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 14.03.2013 calling upon it to show-cause a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... head "income from house property" or under the head "income from other sources". In the statements accompanying the Return of Income, you had not furnished any details as would indicate, let alone establish, that these were so admissible. An illustration may be taken of the interest expenses of Rs. 2,84,95,000/- claimed under the sub-head "administrative expenses". Nothing had been furnished by you to show that any part thereof had been incurred for earning the interest income or any other income. Similarly, in your Return of Income you had brought forward and set off earlier year's business losses of Rs. 2,68,64,699/- even though in the absence of any business / business income, you were not eligible to such set off. 4. During the course of the scrutiny proceeding, the Assessing Officer did not raise any question, nor made any enquiry whatsoever, regarding the issues / claims mentioned in the preceding para. A questionnaire was issued by him on 21.06.2010. However, in the said questionnaire, not a single query was raised as regards the heads of income under which the income returned by you should be assessed and the eligibility or otherwise of the various expenses cl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee relied on the decision in the cases of CIT vs. Vikram Cotton Mills Ltd., (1988) 169 ITR 597 (SC); and CIT vs. Mohiddin Hotels (P) Ltd. & Anr., (2006) 284 ITR 229 (Bom). The assessee further submitted before the Ld. Commissioner that as the financial statements viz. Profit & Loss Account and Balance Sheet would show, the assessee business was going on. Therefore, it was justified in claiming interest costs of Rs. 2,84,95,000/- as business expenditure. In this connection, the assessee also stated that the above interest had been incurred for acquiring fixed assets, setting up plants and for other business purposes. The assets thus acquired continued to be used by the lessee in the business of manufacturing sugar. Therefore, the assessee was eligible for deduction of the interest so incurred. For the same reason, its claim of depreciation was also valid. Lastly, the business was temporarily leased out and therefore the assessee's claim of set-off of unabsorbed business losses against the current year's income was also justified. 7. As a sequel to the aforesaid reply of the assessee, the Ld. Commissioner required the assessee to furnish year-wise details of manufacturing and any ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... issuance of show cause notice under section 263 of the Act proposing to revise the assessment order in which the Assessing Officer had accepted the rentals etc. returned by the assessee under the head "business" even while the facts on records in his opinion indicated to the contrary. 9. The Ld. Commissioner next distinguished the decision in the case of Vikram Cotton Mills Ltd. (supra) and Mohiddin Hotels (P) Ltd. & Anr. (supra) on facts. The Ld. Commissioner made averments to the effect that the intention of the parties to carry on business vis-à-vis exploitation of assets has to be gathered from the overall facts. He thereafter relied upon the decision in the case of New Sevan Sugar and Gur Refinery Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, (1969) 74 ITR 7 (SC); Madras Silk and Rayon Mills (P) Ltd. vs. ITO & Anr., 262 ITR 122 (Mad); and, Universal Plats Limited vs. CIT, 237 ITR 454 (SC) to support his action under section 263 of the Act. 10. The Ld. Commissioner inter alia observed that from the various decisions cited, it can be seen that question whether income derived by an assessee from leasing its premises is in the nature of income from business or income from other sources/ house p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e period. Thus, the assessee-lessor had, by virtue of the lease agreement, no role what-so-ever to play except receiving the hire charges. The lease agreement provided that minimum hire charges would be paid for each year irrespective of actual crushing. That the assessee virtually came out of business as per the lease agreement and for the lease period would be evident from clause 38 which stipulated that - "The lesser shall give vacant possession of the sugar godowns, molasses tank or any other storage places situated within the factory premises of the lessor that are vacant on the date of the agreement. In as much as those of such premises that are not vacant the lessor shall hand over the vacant possession thereof immediately on the same becoming vacant." 12. Based on the analysis of the terms and conditions of the lease agreement above, the Ld. Commissioner observed that even though the assets leased out continued to be commercial assets, the lessee was entitled for full-scale exploitation thereof, with the assessee no way involved in it. In so far as the assessee was concerned, it was a lease simplicitor. Of course, the lease agreement stipulated a few ob....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....perate on account of circumstances beyond its control, as also on account of its limited crushing capacity, he noted that the "circumstances beyond control" have not been specified in the agreement, nor explained during the present proceedings. As for "limited crushing capacity" as the reasons advanced is also not plausible reason since the lessee who stepped into the shoes of the assessee for carrying on manufacturing operations also was operating with the same limited crushing capacity. Therefore, from the lease agreement, it would appear that the intention of the assessee in stopping the business and in parting with its factory premises and industrial unit through an arrangement of lease does not seem to be for commercial exploitation of business assets. On the contrary, the intention seems to be to exploit its properties as the owner thereof. The Ld. Commissioner further observed that from the lease agreement, it is evident that assessee did not have any role in the business operation apart from getting periodic rent. The assessee would get the rent irrespective of whether any crushing was done or not. These are further indicators that the intention was to put the assets to pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly accepted the Return of Income without making any enquiry. On the contrary, he raised some queries which were not at all relevant. Therefore, the assessment order dated 19.11.2010 has certainly been an erroneous one within the meaning of section 263. 7. Having stated as above, I would still desist from deciding on the issues raised in the notice u/s.263 conclusively at this point of time. Even though the various indicators emerging from the lease agreement would lead to the inference that the assessee's income is not liable to be assessed under the head "Profit and Gains of Business and Profession", I would deem it proper to remit this matter to the file of the Assessing Officer so as to enable him to examine the issues raised in the notice u/s.263 and discussed here-in-above afresh after calling for all the relevant details and evidences and also after making such further enquiries as are warranted. This course is being preferred because the assessee has not met the queries raised during the present proceedings, and the present status of operations has also not been made known. Accordingly, the assessment is hereby set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer with....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....101 TTJ 1095 (Mum). The Ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee extensively argued in the alternative and without prejudice to the aforesaid contentions to say that while the lease rentals are assessed under the head 'income from other sources', depreciation and interest expenses are nevertheless allowable as deduction under section 57. Even unpaid interest on loan taken for purchase of business assets allowable under section 57(iii) as section 43B would not apply. Likewise, When the lease rent is assessed under the head 'income from house property', the impugned interest expense is allowable under section 24 even if remaining unpaid because section 43B would not apply here also. Moreover, the assessee would be entitled to 30% statutory deduction from gross rent. In the light of aforesaid the revision proposed by the Ld. Commissioner will not lead to any loss on the revenue as demonstrated below :- "Income from other sources- Gross rent- 2,90,47,300/- Less interest- 2,84,95,300/- Depreciation- 30,23,116/- Admin Exp.- 7,64,771/- Total- 3,22,83,187/- Balance- Loss- 32,35,807/- House Property Income- Gross Rent- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CIT, (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC). 18 He therefore vehemently contended that impugned revisionsal order in appeal is without jurisdiction and is legally not sustainable and therefore deserves to be set-aside. 19. The Ld. Departmental Representative for the Revenue, on the other hand, strongly relied upon threadbare analysis of facts recorded in the order of the Ld. Commissioner and submitted that the Assessee as a matter of fact is not doing any business activity since 2001 onwards and entering into lease agreement for long period of six years from assessment year 2006-07 to 2011- 12 would clearly demonstrate that there is no intention to carry on the manufacturing activity by the assessee itself. The action of the assessee in entering into lease agreement clearly is towards exploitation of the property as an owner thereof and therefore the Ld. Commissioner has come to a correct finding that the income declared under the head "business income" should be assessed either under income from other sources of under income from house property based on the facts and circumstances, the terms and conditions of the lease etc. for which the matter has been rightly set aside to the file of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... business activities since long and has also entered into lease for a fairly long period of 5 years, intention to exploit the factory premises and industrial unit as a owner thereof and not the commercial exploitation of the property by taking attendant business risks is manifest. We find the contention of the Assessee that business has only been suspended temporarily as highly unconvincing and inexplicable. When as per the facts recorded, the Assessee is out of business for nearly a decade and the affairs of the Assessee are also now saddled with Liquidator, it is highly unpalatable for a person instructed under law to accept such plea of the Assessee. The presence of Liquidator spells out that command over regular affairs are also vested with third person. Such a situation renders the possibility of resumption of business illusory. 23. The terms of the lease deed makes it abundantly clear that the Assessee is in no way involved in the business activity any more as quipped by the Ld. CIT and the entire factory premises and Industrial unit have been let out. The Assessee is merely entitled to pre-determined fixed periodic rent for exploitation of property simplicitor dehors the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ack of application of mind. This in itself renders the order erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of revenue without anything further. This well settled proposition is supported by long line of cases namely CIT vs. Shri Bhagwandas 272 ITR 367(All.) ; Vijendra Pal Singh vs. CIT 163 ITR 129 (Mad.); Dhariwal Industries Ltd. vs. ACIT 111 ITD 379 (SB) ; Ambika Agro Supplies vs. ITO 95 ITD 326 (Pune) ; Pancard Clubs Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT ITA No. 2389 & 2418 /Mum/2009 order dated 16/3/2011; etc. It would be expedient to note here that the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gabriel India (supra) relied upon on behalf of the Assessee is distinguishable on facts since an informed and plausible view was taken by the AO after proper enquiry which was sought to be displaced by the CIT. On facts, it is evident that no enquiry has been shown to be made by the AO on the relevant aspects of the matter which have direct bearing on the taxability of income. The submission of the Assessee were taken at face value. The action of the AO in summarily accepting the lease rent as 'business income' as offered by the Assessee is thus vitiated by non application of mind. As a coro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....under the narrow and disadvantaged head of 'income from other sources' is perplexing and intriguing. Notwithstanding, the present act of accepting the income as business income will continue to grant the assessee, the right to carry forward and set off. This is also prejudicial to the revenues' interest by itself. Be that as it may, the correctness of claim of expenditure as well as its allowability qua the proper head of income need to be examined after conducting suitable enquiry. The entire act is thus prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 27. The judicial decisions cited by the learned AR for the Assessee are clearly distinguishable in the factual matrix of the case. The reliance placed on the decision of (i) Jewel of India vs. ACIT (2010) 325 ITR 92(Bom.) (ii) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bom.) (iii) Globus Infocom Ltd. 108 DTR 363 (Del.) for the proposition that in the absence of clear finding of the CIT that order sought to be revised is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue is misplaced in the facts. There can be no quarrel with the legal proposition. However, we find that the findings of the CIT are clear and unambiguous backed by elaborate a....