AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (1) TMI 1388
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of the case are that the assessee in the year under consideration is stated to be deriving income from the manufacturing and sale of electronic power meters. By way of electronically filing its return on 26.09.2009 the assessee had returned a NIL income. The case was selected for scrutiny by CASS and after issuance of notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) deduction u/s 80-IC was allowed to the net profit of Rs. 54,31,995/- by the assessment order dated 16.11.2010 passed u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act. The Commissioner in the exercise of his revisionary powers noting that the net profit includes interest of Rs. 22,29,129/- issued a show cause notice to the assessee requiring him to explain as to how the said interest income was allowable as a deduction u/s 80 IC of the Act. In response to the same, the assessee submitted that the interest income is out of FDR pledged as a security to obtain bank guarantee as such it is eligible for deduction u/s 80 IC. Reliance was placed on the following decisions :- * CIT vs Paramount Premises (P.) Ltd. [1991] 190 ITR 259 (Bom.) * CIT vs Arvind Constructions Co. Ltd. [2009] 317 ITR 276 (Del.) * CIT vs Japee DSC Ventures Ltd. [2011]....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssue could not be decided considering Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fert. Ltd. and the issue instead should be decided considering the decision of the Apex Court in CIT vs Karnal Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. [2000] 243 ITR 2. It was his submission that in the facts of the present case also these decisions following CIT vs Jaypee DSC Ventures Ltd. should have been followed. Reliance was also placed upon another decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Nectar Life Sciences Ltd. [2011] 203 Taxman 0318 (Del.) wherein their Lordships considering the deduction u/s 80HHC in the context of interest of FDRs kept with the bank as a security for opening letter of credit allowed the claim of the assessee. The Ld. AR was required to address how the decisions relied upon in different context would help the assessee's case in the face of the speaking judgements of the Apex Court consistently on the issue which have been referred to by the CIT, Dehradun in the order. However the Ld. AR merely relied upon the decisions cited which had also been relied upon before the CIT, Dehradun. 5. Ld. CIT Dr placing reliance upon the impugned order submitted that the CIT has not referred to the decisi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... faulted with. It is evident from the record that the claim allowed by the AO was not allowable in law. The issue on facts is well settled by a plethora of decisions right from the decision of the Apex Court in the Cambay Electric Supply Indstl. Co. Ltd. vs CIT rendered on 11.04.1978 wherein their Lordships have brought out in detail the differences in the meaning of "attributable to" and "derived from". The expression further came up for consideration in the case of CIT vs Sterling Foods [1999] 237 ITR 579 rendered on 15.04.1999 and followed in yet another decision by the Apex Court in Pandian Chemicals Ltd. vs CIT [2003] 262 ITR 278 rendered on 24.04.2003. The latest decision of the Apex Court in the case of Liberty India vs CIT again re-affirms the same view. As opposed to the settled legal position relied upon by the Ld. Commissioner, Dehradun it is seen from a perusal of the impugned order the decisions relied upon by the assessee have been held to be distinguishable on facts. Addressing the decisions relied upon before us we hold concurring with the findings of the CIT, Dehradun that they do not come to rescue of the assessee in the admitted facts. NO effort has been made by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....here is an error unless he makes out a case that the error is such that the order is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The rationale for having such powers vested in the Commissioner is based on the fact that the Revenue does not have any right to appeal against the order of the Assessing Officer. It is well-settled legal position that the Assessing Officer is both an Investigator and an Adjudicator. If the Assessing Officer in the discharge of his duties and functions as an adjudicator decides a question or aspect and makes a wrong assessment which is unsustainable in law, it can be corrected by the Commissioner in exercise of his Revisionary powers. It is a well accepted legal position that as an Investigator it is incumbent upon the Assessing Officer to investigate the facts required to be examined and verify the same in order to compute the taxable income. If the Assessing Officer fails to conduct the said investigations, he commits an error and the word "erroneous" includes failure to make the enquiry. In such cases the order becomes erroneous because enquiry or verification has not been made and not because a wrong order has been passed on merits. The reason is obv....