TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (1) TMI 1023
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llowance 2. Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, the Ld. PCIT's Revisional Order is without jurisdiction and illegal for the following reasons: (i) The initiation of the proceedings under Sec.263 was without jurisdiction, inasmuch as that provision, in terms, authorizes the authorities specified therein to revise only an "........ order passed............by the Assessing Officer.........." Not an order passed by the Assessing Officer in pursuance of the directions of the Learned Dispute Resolution Panel ("Ld. DRP"). (ii) The assessment Order dated 27th February, 2017 was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, having regard to the fact that the Ld. A.O had followed decisions of the jurisdictional Bombay High Court and of the Jurisdictional Mumbai Bench of the Appellate Tribunal which were binding on him. (iii) The ld. PCIT's rejection of the Assessee's submission to him that since the Ld. A.O had made power enquiries before passing the Assessment Order, proceedings under Sec.263 could not have been invoked, is manifestly erroneous in law, inasmuch as such rejection is founded on the Ld. PCIT's following findings, each of which....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 13,53,12,226/-) GROUND (S) ON MERITS Netting Off of Interest 3. In holding that netting off of interest is not allowable, the Ld. PCIT erred in the following respects: (i) He erred in not following the following decisions of the Bombay High Court and of the Mumbai Bench of the Appellate Tribunal, which were cited before him and which were binding on him: (a) The Director of Income Tax (Intl Taxation) V. Bank of America NT & SA (Bombay High Court) (ITA No.177 of 2012 dated 3rd July, 2014) [Affirmative Appellate Tribunal's decision at (ii) below] (b) DCIT v. Bank of America NT & SA [2011 - Tll-114-ITATMum- INTL] Dated 27th April, 2011 (c) Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank V. ADIT (Trib - Mum) (Order dated 10th December, 2014 in ITA Nos. 724 & 1135/Mum/2011 and 4116/Mum/2014, along with CO No. 220/Mum/2013) (d) Superplaza Mercantile Co. P. Ltd. V. ACIT (Trib-Mum) (Order dated 27th April, 2015 in ITA No. 2100/Mum/2012) (e) Lupin Ltd. V. ACIT [2018] 94 taxmann.com 282 (Mumbai - Trib) Dated 27th April, 2018 (ii) He erred in following the CIT(A)'s Order in the case of Tata Sons, in preference to the aforesaid binding decisions of the jurisdictional ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icial to the interest of the revenue. On the basis of his aforesaid observations the Pr. CIT called upon the assessee to explain as to why the assessment framed by the A.O under Sec. 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13), dated 24.02.2017 may not be revised under Sec 263 of the Act. In reply, the assessee tried to impress upon the A.O that the netting off the interest received on income-tax refund against the interest paid to the same party i.e Government of India was in conformity with the settled position of law. Also, the assessee objected to the jurisdiction assumed by the Pr. CIT for revising the assessment order of the A.O under Sec. 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13),dated 24.02.107, for the reason, that the same was passed pursuant to the directions of the DRP. However, the Pr. CIT was not persuaded to subscribe to the aforesaid explanation of the assessee. Observing, that alike the income-tax payment the statutory interest payment was also not allowable as a deduction, the Pr. CIT held a conviction that the failure on the part of the A.O to disallow the assesses claim of netting off the interest paid against the interest received on income tax refund had rendered his order passed under Sec. 143(3) r.w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... taken by the A.O fell within the four corners of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, therefore, the same could not be held as erroneous within the meaning of Sec. 263 of the Act. In order to drive home his contention that a plausible view arrived at by an A.O cannot be dislodged by the revisional authority in exercise of powers vested with him under Sec. 263 of the Act, the ld. A.R had relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC). 5. Per contra, the ld. Departmental representative (for short 'D.R') relied on the order passed by the Pr. CIT under Sec. 263 of the Act. It was submitted by the ld. D.R, that as the netting off the interest received on refund against the interest paid u/ss. 234B and 234C was not permissible under law, therefore, the Pr. CIT taking cognizance of the said fallacy in the assessment order, which had rendered the same as erroneous insofar it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue had rightly directed the A.O to recompute the income of the assessee after disallowing the aforesaid claim of deduction. 6. We have heard the authorised representatives for both the parties, perused ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....do not see that such findings of the Tribunal are vitiated in law. All that the Tribunal has done earlier and now is that in the case of this Assessee simply because the exercise out by it does not result in loss of revenue and there could not be any prohibition for the same, allowed it. That is how the Assessing officer's order is set aside. We do not see how any larger controversy or question arises for our consideration. Mr. Pinto would refer to Section 57 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in that regard and submit that this course would be adopted by other Assessees as well and in that even the order passed by this Court would come in the way of the revenue in investigating and probing such exercise by other assessees. 4. We do not see how this order can be cited as precedent inasmuch as the Assessee before the Tribunal and before us paid interest to the Income Tax Department amounting to Rs. 10,26,906/-. The Assessee claimed that this was business expenditure and this should have been allowed. The Assessee has received the interest of Rs. 1,07,57,930/-. It was submitted that the amount of interest paid by the Assessee should have been allowed to be set off against the interest de....