2016 (1) TMI 318

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ch, Kolkata in ITA No.892/Kol/2014 for the assessment year 2007-08 on the following substantial questions of law : 2 (a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "A" Bench Kolkata erred in law as well as in facts in canceling the order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without considering the facts, that as per material available on records the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue ? (b) Whether the impugned order is bad, arbitrary, illegal, perverse and the same is nothing but a total non-application of mind of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata and the same is liable to be set aside and/or quashed ? ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 2003-04 and treated the same as capital expenditure. Since the leave rentals paid for motor cars taken on lease was also required to be treated as capital expenditure in the A.Y. 2007- 08, the assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the IT Act, 1961 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue to the extent mentioned above. 3. A notice u/s. 263 was issued on 08-02-2014 in response to which Shri Himangsu Patel and Bikash Jain attend the office and submitted the written reply. It was argued that rental charges paid for Motor cars were the regular expenditure of the assessee ad it is to be treated in revenue expenditure for the year. 4. I have considered written submissions of the assessee. The issue....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ddition made by AO. Therefore, it can be said that the view taken by AO was one of the possible view so it cannot be said that the assessment order passed by him was erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 9.......................................................................................... 10. In the present case, as we have already pointed out in the former part of the order that the view taken by the AO was one of the possible view, therefore, the assessment order passed by him for the year under consideration i.e.AY 2007-08 was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Moreover, the Ld.CIT in the impugned order has simply stated that the assessee furnished the written reply. Howev....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Officer to examine the matter after calling the lease document which had already been considered and examined by the Assessing Officer. In this regard it is pertinent to mention that Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Max India Ltd : (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC), had held that "when an Income-tax Officer adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue; or where two views are possible and the Income-tax Officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law." Further, it is also to be noted that in Russell Properties Pvt. Ltd....