TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 258
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Corporate Social Responsibility claim of the appellant - assessee ?" 2. Few facts giving rise to the Income Tax Appeal are stated thus : The appellant assessee is a public sector undertaking wholly owned by the Government of India. The assessee Company is involved in the business of extraction and sale of manganese ore, generation of electricity and manufacturing and sale of EMV and ferro minerals. An E-return was filed by the assessee Company for the assessment year 200910 on 26.9.2009 declaring the total income of nearly Rs. 1008,53,44,720/. The notice under Section 142 (1) of the Income Tax Act pertaining to the assessment year 200910 for furnishing the details in respect of twenty items mentioned in the notice dated 20.11.20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Revenue. After having held so, the Commissioner of Income Tax remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer to redo the assessment in respect of the claim of the appellant assessee pertaining to the Corporate Social Responsibility. Being aggrieved by the exercise of the jurisdiction by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Act, the appellant assessee filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, however, by the order dated 25.2.2016 dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee while upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax invoking the jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act and remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer for redoing the assessment in respect of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... recording reasons for doing so. The learned Counsel took this Court though the judgments of the Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax...Versus...Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd., reported in (2015) 372 ITR 303 (Bom.) and Commissioner of Income Tax...Versus...Nirav Modi, reported in (2016) 138 DTR 81 (Bom.) to submit that if a query is raised during the assessment proceedings and if the assessee responds to the said query, merely because the said aspect is not dealt with in the assessment order, would not lead to a conclusion that the Assessing Officer had not applied his mind to the response of the assessee. It is stated that while holding so, the Bombay High Court has relied on an earlier judgment of the Bombay High Court....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....taining to the allowance of the claim towards the Corporate Social Responsibility. It is submitted that after going through the assessment order, the Commissioner of Income Tax had found that the Assessing Officer had not made any enquiry regarding the allowability of expenses under the head "Corporate Social Responsibility". It is submitted that in the circumstances of the case, specially when the assessment order is silent in regard to the allowability of the claim towards the Corporate Social Responsibility, the Commissioner of Income Tax has rightly exercised the jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act. 5. On a perusal of the orders passed by the Authorities, it appears that before the assessment order was passed, a notice was served....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessment order. The claims for deductions were made by the assessee at least under 20 heads and queries were made in the notice under Section 142 (1) of the Act to the assessee in respect of nearly all of them. We, however, find from the assessment order that the Assessing Officer has dealt with nearly nine claims of deductions. These claims have been specifically mentioned in the assessment order and they have been discussed therein because the Assessing Officer appears to have disallowed those claims either partially or totally. In respect of the claim for the Corporate Social Responsibility and some other claims that were allowed by the Assessing Officer, the Assessing Officer has not made a specific reference in the assessment order.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in that case the Assessing Officer took a possible view and therefore, it was not a case where the provisions of Section 263 of the Act could have been resorted to. Considering the explanation of the assessee in this case, we are also of the view that the Assessing Officer had taken a possible view. In the case of Nirav Modi (Supra) this Court held that the Tribunal was justified in that case in cancelling the order under Section 263 of the Act as the assessee had responded to the query made to it during the assessment proceedings and merely because the assessment order did not mention the same, it would not lead to a conclusion that the Assessing Officer had not applied his mind to the case. In the instant case, we find that the Assessing ....