TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 1760
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty as there is no material on record to suggest that the order is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 3. That the order of the Pr Commissioner of Income Tax-I lacks from judicial consistency as the said deduction u/s 80A has been allowed by the subsequent assessing officers for the A/Y 2013-14 after scrutinizing all the details, making enquiries, proper verification and consideration of the entire material on record had allowed the claim of the assessee after due application of mind. 4. That the final issues on which jurisdiction has been assumed u/s 263 does not find mention in the show cause notices which is bad in law. 2. The ld. AR inviting attention to the assessment order dated 20.12.2014 submitted that it has been passed by the AO with due application of mind and after carrying out a full inquiry on the issues which are a subject matter for consideration by the Pr. CIT-I Chandigarh exercising his Revisionary powers. 2.1 In the facts of the present case, it was submitted, that the order was not maintainable. Reliance was placed on the detailed reasons set out in the synopsis running into 13 p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by the AO was either erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. It was submitted that the AO had considered the contract entered into by the assessee in 2011-12 Assessment Year and considering the facts, assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 20.12.2014 had been passed. Considering the new contracts entered into by the assessee, the AO after scrutinizing all details and after making necessary inquiries, accepted the assessee's submission that the new contracts were also identical and were Infrastructure development and maintenance contracts. Thus, after due enquiry, the view taken in 2011-12 assessment year had been followed. Nothing has been referred to in the impugned order that the view was incorrect. 2.4 It was submitted by the ld. AR that it is an admitted fact that in 2011-12 assessment year, the issue came up before the ITAT wherein considering the similar activity carried out by the assessee but only in respect of one project i.e. Thural Project, the ITAT struck down similar exercise of power by Pr. CIT vide its order dated 06.02.2017 in ITA 361/CHD/2016. The said fact, it was submitted, was in the knowledge of the Pr. CIT who while ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ranted by the AO on erroneous facts without due application of mind and on the basis of inadequate inquiry and without considering the Contract. Even in the said year, the AO was castigated for granting relief without making any enquiry. The ITAT in the order dated 06.02.2012 in ITA 361/CHD/2016 held that it was not a case of inadequate enquiry. Inviting attention to para 4 of the synopsis filed, it was submitted, that the queries raised and details made available to the AO which are also relied upon by the Pr. CIT would show that all aspects and facts have been considered. The replies of the assessee set out in para 4 were heavily relied upon. Reading therefrom, it was submitted, that apart from the other arguments, even otherwise the assumption of jurisdiction was not maintainable as the issue which finds mention in the order was not mentioned in the show cause notice. It was submitted had it been referred, the detailed replies to queries on record would have shown that even in this regard,, the powers u/s 263 have been wrongly invoked by the Pr CIT. Since heavy reliance is placed on these facts and submissions, for ready reference, the submiss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erial No.1 with regard to nature of contract of Thural since last year and the same type of contract were taken at other places at Paragpur in HP at Pauri in Uttrakhand and at Rudraparyag (Uttrakhand). Thus, the AO was fully appraised of the fact that there is new contracts were taken during the year as mentioned at Serial No.2, 3 and 4 and full details were given at Serial No.1. ix. Then at page 45, the provisions of 80 IA have been explained as to how the deduction is admissible. x. Then, at page 46, the nature of contract as taken during the year under consideration from H.P. Irrigation Department and Uttrakhand Peyjal Nigam department has been explained. xi. Then again vide our reply, dated 10.10.2014 more information was desired by the Assessing Officer and other clarification was given, which is at Serial No.1 at Page 48 to 50. xii. Then, again same has been reiterated a Page 51 Serial No.1 and at Page 52 Serial No.5. Thereafter, the order u/s 143(3) was passed by the Assessing Officer and in the order at page 56, the reason for selection the case in scrutiny has been mentioned as under: "The reasons for selection of case in scrutiny are "large deduction....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s along with Award Letter and schedules accompanied by site plan of development activities of the respective Infrastructure Development Project were produced before the Assessing Officer during the original assessment proceedings. It was submitted that these are undisputed facts and accepted by the Pr. CIT who also while passing the order u/s 263 as per Page 2 and 3 of the order of Pr. CIT takes note that "Contracts" along with Maps and Photographs had been filed, copies of these are at Pages 86 to 110 of the Paper Book and, then from Pages 111 to 114. Copies of certificates issued u/s 197(1) of Income Tax Act by the ACIT, (TDS) Chandigarh directing 0.5% as TDS in respect of the payment to contractor etc. for these four different Contracts entered into by the assessee at Dehra, Thural, Rudraprayag and Pauri. The certificate had been issued after considering the submissions and the specific contracts. The AO in the facts of the present case had the benefit of assessment order for assessment year 2011-12 wherein similar claim had been allowed after due consideration and, thus, he had already considered each and every clause and condition of the composite contr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 80-Income Tax Act to direct a lower deduction of TDS. 2.8 It was submitted that argument that these were infrastructure development, maintenance and operation contacts was considered by the Pr. CIT, Chandigarh and he has noticed it in page 2 of his order but still he was proceeding on suspicions and ignored this patent fact. The relevant observation from the impugned order is reproduced hereunder: 'It was forcibly argued and submitted that that the assessee is primarily engaged in the infrastructure development, maintenance and operation of development of infrastructure facilities. It was submitted that the assessee was awarded contracts by Irrigation and Public Health Department (IPH), Thural Division and Dehra Division of HP Government one/Government of Uttrakhand Peyjal Nigam, Pauri and Rudraparyag." (emphasis supplied) 2.9 The fact that similar argument has been raised before the Pr. CIT and has been ignored by the said authority, it was submitted is further evident from para 3: "Therefore, it was submitted that the composite projects awarded to the assessee were on built, operate and transfer basis. It was further submitted that copies of all the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the nature of a "works contract". It was submitted that the reply of the assessee has been set out in para 9 wherein the Pr. CIT has referred to the questionnaire issued by the AO in para 10 and thereafter referring to the reply dated 21.11.2014 which has been referred to at pages 1 to 14 of his order, he has set aside the proceedings avoiding the correct and true facts. Reliance was placed on para 7 of the synopsis filed in which the assessee addresses the point for point critical observations of the order of the Pr. CIT by way of a Chart. Same is reproduced hereunder for ready reference : "7. The Pr. CIT has set aside the proceedings on the following facts:- S.NO. 1 Observation of Pr. CIT The Pr. CIT has stated in Para 13 that, though, the claim of deduction was raised by the Assessing Officer and replied by the Assessee, but the terms and conditions of the contract executed were not enquired upon or verified by the Assessing Officer and had accepted the plea of the assessee on face value. It has further been stated that the copy of the contract executed at Thu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Officer mention in the order in para 3.1 of the order with regard to the nature and type of contract going by the Show Cause Notice of Pr. CIT and this could have been mentioned only when, the AO had analyzed all the contracts and, therefore, the finding of the Pr. CIT in Para 20, while accepting the order of ITAT, is clearly out of context that nature and type of new contracts are not as per record. As regards the finding of the Pr. CIT about proportionate profit and bifurcation of expenses, it is submitted that the Assessing Officer had considered this issue, while passing the assessment order at Pages 62 to 67 of the "Paper Book" and disallowed the depreciation to the tune of Rs. 65,72,744/- and further, about the finding of the Pr. CIT that bifurcation is without any basis, it is submitted that the bifurcation has been looked into by the Assessing Officer i.e. he has made the disallowance of Rs. 65,72,7447- and, as such, the finding of the Pr. CIT on this issue with regard to bifurcation of expenses is not proper, since the Assessing Officer has already applied his mind to the same and what basis should be justified, has not been mentioned by the Pr. CIT and, thus, the assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....out an issue, the Pr. CIT cannot set-aside the assessment: 7. The reliance by the Pr. CIT on various judgments at page 18, 19 & 20 are only on the issue, that where the Assessing Officer had not applied his mind to the issue, then, it could be case of making "no enquiry" and then it could he held that the assessment is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. But whereas, the facts as given by the assessee, clearly demonstrates that the Assessing Officer has fully applied his mind and considered each and every aspect and, thus, the order of Pr. CIT deserves to be quashed. Reliance is being placed on the following Judgments: 1 Narain Singia V/s Pr. Commissioner of income Tax ITA N0.427/CHD/2015, ITAT, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh 1-15 2 Universal Woollen Mills V/s Commissioner of Income Tax ITA No.616/CHD/2015, ITAT, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh 16-32 3 Ved Parkash Contractor V/s Commissioner of Income Tax ITA No.573/CHD/2015, ITAT, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh 33-53 4 Kumar Enterprises V/s Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax ITA No.525/CHD/2014, ITAT, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh 54-67 5 Venus Woollen Mills V/s Commissioner of Income Tax 36 ITR (Trib) CHD....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essment proceedings and these was duly verified by the assessing officer. iv) The non exempt projects are in continuation from the contracts awarded in assessment year 2011-12 i.e. last year and the issue regarding comparatively higher expenses in case of non-exempted units as compared to the exempted projects has been decided in favour of the assessee by the Hon'ble ITAT Bench while passing orders against reopening of assessment u/s 263 for the Asstt. Year 2011-12. The concerned issue has been dealt at page 158-159 of the paper book and at pages 32-33 of the order of the Hon'ble ITAT against reopening of assessment u/s 263 for assessment year 2011-12. Thus, it is prayed that the order of Pr. CIT may be quashed and oblige. 2.14 On the basis of these arguments, facts and submissions and relying upon the Paper Book filed, it was submitted that the copy of the order-sheet placed at pages 32 to 33 and the copies of the queries raised in the course of the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) at pages 34 to 38 when read alongwith the replies filed by the assessee in respect of queries raised in the course of the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) at pages 39 to 55 are ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roduced hereunder : "The assessee was awarded contract for development and maintenance of the infrastructure scheme for lift water supply on BOT basis by the Himachal Pradesh Irrigation and Public Health Department and Uttrakhand Peyjal Nigam departments of State Government. The contract involves successful development of the -composite project for developing infrastructure for water supply and its successful commissioning and successfully operating the project for a period of five years with all sorts of entrepreneurial risks as the failure of any-component will affect the operation of the entire project. It is altogether different from the risks involved in the service provided -and work done contracts, where the risk is limited to provide -service or work and remove the defects during defect liability period. The performance -guarantee involved in the composite development project is to successfully develop the whole water supply project, successfully commission it and to successfully run the project for a period of five years, whereas in the case of work contracts the performance guarantee is limited to the work done by the -contractor lone. (emphasis supplied) &nb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... same would show that the AO carried out a detailed re-calculation for the purpose of depreciation taking due note of the fact that there were exempt projects and also non-exempted projects. This fact is also again noted at page 12 of his order. Thus, after carrying out a detailed exercise working of the assets put to use at the different projects was carried out by the AO only after looking through the details made available as per contracts and thus it was submitted it cannot be the case of the Department that the claim of the assessee has been allowed without any inquiry. 2.21 Referring to page 71 which is the second, Show Cause Notice of the Pr. CIT it was submitted that suspicion that on the issues raised in paras (i) and (ii)thereof were not examined are without any basis. Referring to the AO, it was submitted that the AO has taken due notice of exempted and non-exempted units and the Pr. CIT has arbitrarily arrived at the conclusion that it was without any inquiry. It was argued that whereas the fact is that it was enquired into and re-calculated and this fact is coming out from the assessment order itself and no infirmity has been pointe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....under section 263 of the Act were initiated and show cause notice issued to the assessee which mentioned the discrepancies noted in the assessment order passed as follows: i) The assessee company was awarded contract by Himachal Pradesh Government, Irrigation and Public Health Department Division Thural, Distt. Kangra. It is seen that the assessee company has claimed deduction u/s 80IA of I.T Act, 1961 on the profits of the said contract. The project is apparently covered under the definition of "Work Contract". Accordingly as per the explanation to sub-section 13 of Section 80IA, deduction u/s 80IA of I.T. Act, 1961 is not allowable on the profits derived from these projects. Allowance of deduction u/s 80IA has thus resulted in loss of Revenue. ii) Deduction u/s 80IA has been claimed on profits derived from the project of Water Supply. It is seen that in Trading Account, a payment of Rs. 2,92,48,936/- has been made for "Job Work Done by Sub-Contractors". Proportionate profits earned on the job work executed by a sub-contractors is not eligible for deduction u/s 80IA. This issue has not been examined by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings and has resu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... revenue and accordingly set aside the same with a direction to the Assessing Officer pass an order afresh in accordance with law. The relevant findings of the learned Pr. CIT at para 3.1 to 4 of his order are as under: "3.1 In reply to the issue at Sr. No. 1 of the show cause, the assessee has filed a detailed reply wherein it has been stated that: i) The composite project entrusted/awarded to the assessee was on built, operate and transfer basis. ii) For the execution of contract the machinery installed including its components, engineers & labour employed, designing, execution, financing in the form of capital investment, entrepreneurship risk, performance guarantee etc. is the responsibility of the assessee. iii) A certificate for deduction of tax at lower rate was issued to the assessee by the CIT(TDS) in view of the fact that the contract awarded to the assessee qualifiers for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. iv) Deduction u/s 80IA was allowed by the AO on the ground that the contract was for infrastructure development and not a civil contract. v) Similar contract in the case of M/s Kavery Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd./Unipro Techno Infrastr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ter making or cause to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify. In this context, it is worthwhile to mention that section 263 does not prescribe any procedural condition for invoking the said provision. The records may be examined for different reasons including any objection raised by the Audit for invoking the provision of section 263. In the case of CIT (Central) Vs Nahar Exports Ltd. (2008] 173 Taxman 3 (P&H), the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, had relied on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT Vs Max India Ltd [295 ITR 282 (SC)] wherein it was held that at the relevant time two views were possible on the word 'profits' in the provision to section 8HHC (3). In the present case, it is not a question of having a view different than the one held by the AO. In the present case the applicability of Explanation to sub section 13 of section 80IA was not examined which prohibits deduction u/s 80IA(4J in the case of work contract. Thus whether the profits derived by the assessee fell under the preview of Explanation to section 13 was an essential condition&nb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... made by the AO during the assessment proceedings with relation of applicability of provision of section 801A(8)/80IA(10) of the Act. Hence, the order passed by the AO is erroneous so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue on this issue also. 3.4 Further, reference is also made here to the newly inserted explanation 2 of Section 263 which was inserted w.e.f. 01.06.2015 and reads as under:- "For the purpose of this section, it is hereby declared that an order passed by the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, if in the opinion the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, - (a) The order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made; (b) The order is passed allowing any relief without inquiring in to the claim; (c) The order has not been made in accordance with' any order, direction or instruction issued by the Board under section 119; or (d) The order has not been passed in accordance with any decision which is prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Basis" i.e. 'BOT'. The ITAT, it was submitted, had taken note of the fact that not a single document, clause or otherwise had been cited by the Pr. CIT to lend credence to a contrary view. 2.24 The second issue, it was submitted, has also been examined by the ITAT vide paras 26 to 29. Similarly on the third issue, on which Revisionary Powers were exercised in the said order addressed in paras 30 to 32 in the said case also, it had not met with approval of the Pr. CIT. The said decision has not been upheld by the ITAT that the receipts from the two projects in the ratio of 2.8=1 were all facts which had been examined. Nothing apart from suspicion had been pointed by the Revenue in support of the conclusion of Pr. CIT in the earlier year also. 2.25 Reiterating the submissions, it was submitted that qua ground No. 4, order is assailed as the Show Cause Notice available on record does not make a mention of the said issues. The fact that the AO has enquired into the issue at length and a speaking order has been passed, are arguments on merit but first the preliminary objection of the assessee remains as in the facts of the present proceedings,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by the AO. The order, passed by the AO, it was submitted, clearly shows non-application of mind by the AO. Arguments of the assessee that all replies have been given, it was submitted, is merely a case of application of mind by the assessee and not a case of application of mind by the AO. It was submitted that it is a fit case for invoking 263 proceedings. The assessee, it was submitted, has created evidences by giving all information on the file. The AO is silent on how many units are started in the year. It was submitted that no doubt the assessee can be said to have given full information, however, the AO, it cannot be said has acted on it. The AO should have looked into the contracts and appropriate order-sheet entries should have been made and pertinent queries should have been raised as only then can it be said to be a case of adequate and full enquiry by the AO. It was also his submission that if change of opinion is to be considered, then the opinion of the Pr. CIT should have greater relevance as opposed to the AO. Accordingly, it was his prayer that the order deserves to be upheld. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the ITAT and detailed order passed by the ITAT has been relied upon. Attention has also been invited to near similar arguments advanced on behalf of the assessee in response to identical allegations made by the Pr. CIT in that year also wherein the allegations of inadequate enquiry; lack of enquiry etc. by the AO in that year have all been advanced and considered by the ITAT. 4.5 On the other hand the departmental stand as has been discussed in greater detail in the earlier part of this order has been that the Pr. CIT, Chandigarh in the facts of the present case has taken note of the findings of the ITAT in respect of the contract pertaining to Thural project and considering the order of the ITAT has not included the same while setting aside the assessment order passed in the year under consideration. Pr. CIT, it has been argued has set aside the order to the extent it pertains to the remaining three new Contracts. The decision has been arrived at on the basis of facts as the AO is held to have allowed the claim of deduction qua Dehra, Pauri and Rudraprayag Projects without caring to enquire into the issues at all. The Assessing Officer is held to have accepted the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....non-exempt projects for the purposes of working out the depreciation to be allowed, it has been submitted evidently demonstrates that all the new agreements were also looked into minutely by the AO and the claim of depreciation as put forth by the assessee is considered and varied by the Assessing Officer . These are facts emanating from the assessment order itself which all go to demonstrate that it is not only a case of adequate queries having been raised in the courses of the hearing but even demonstrates the full application of mind by the Assessing Officer before the passing of the assessment order. 4.9 The arguments have also been advanced that even after looking at the three specific new agreements which the Pr. CIT Chandigarh is suspicious that these have been blindly accepted by the Assessing Officer as these were different from the composite Infrastructural BOT Contract with Thural Project, then the Pr. CIT has brought nothing on record to show that the suspicion was well founded. It has been urged that this suspicion was not supported by the Pr. CIT by pointing to any error let alone an error which was prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue as he has me....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Ld. CIT-DR that the Assessing Officer did not even care to call for the new contracts let alone examine them, is not borne out from the record. The show cause notice issued itself addresses the issue. It has been issued to the assessee admittedly after examining the record which necessarily also includes the three new Agreements. The Pr. CIT admittedly did not issue the notice stating that the claims of the assessee have been allowed without calling for the specific Agreements which are now required by him to be placed on record. The Pr. CIT has looked at the records, seen the Agreements/Contracts and noticed that the company was awarded a new contract in Dehra Project by Himachal Pradesh Government and in Pauri and Rudraprayag by Uttrakhand Government, specific contracts for projects on which deduction under section 80 IA has been claimed. Had it been a case of the Pr. CIT-I that even the contracts/agreements qua the specific projects were not available on record, then necessarily the Pr.CIT Chandigarh would have had to call for the Agreements which is not so in the facts of the present case. Accordingly, the departmental claim based on the arguments of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... we find that even the learned Pr. CIT has not spelt out the same in his order. Even before us the Ld. DR has failed to show how the inquiry made was inadequate and what further investigation was required in the matter or why on the basis of explanation and evidences filed by the assessee the correct nature of the contract could not be deduced. In such circumstances, we hold, it cannot be said that there was any error in the order of the Assessing Officer so as to cause prejudice to the Revenue." 4.13 The specific issue addressed in para-3 of the above show cause notice has been addressed by the ITAT in para 20 to 25 and it would be appropriate to reproduce the same also at this point of time 20. Moreover, we find that after going through the replies filed by the assessee the Assessing Officer discussed the same in his assessment order and recorded his satisfaction regarding the assessee's claim for such deduction stating that the activity undertaken by the assessee clarifies for deduction under section 80IA of the Act. The Assessing Officer further added that this was the second year of claim of deduction since the assessee company had been awarded the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the agreement to lend credence to his view. The entire thrust of the learned Pr. CIT in exercising revisionary powers is that adequate enquiry vis-à-vis claim of deduction under section 80IA of the Act was not carried out, which as we have stated above, the Ld. counsel for the assessee has demonstrated is incorrect. Adequate enquiries were carried out, adequate replies were filed by the assessee and the Assessing Officer after having applied his mind to the explanations and evidences filed by the assessee had arrived at a plausible conclusion that the assessee was unable to deduction under section 80IA of the Act. We are, therefore, in complete agreement with the Ld. counsel of the assessee that the issue was examined and verified during assessment proceedings and the Assessing Officer had arrived at a plausible conclusion that on the basis of the verification carried out by it that the assessee was eligible to claim deduction under section 80IA of the Act and therefore there was no error in the order of the Assessing Officer so as to cause prejudice to the Revenue. The action of the learned Pr. CIT in exercising his revisionary powers on this ground is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....could not be said that in the succeeding year those very same parameters had changed on the same set of facts. The Assessing Officer, after considering all the documents placed before it, had in the preceding year concluded that the assessee was carrying out an infrastructure related project which was not in the nature of works contract as defined under section 80IA, read with Explanation-13 and thus the assessee was eligible to claim deduction under section 80IA of the Act. In the impugned case, which is the succeeding year, on the very same set of facts the findings of the preceding year on the fact that the assessee was carrying out eligible infrastructure project and not works contract, cannot now be disturbed, which is exactly what has been stated by the High Court in the order passed in the case of Micro Instrument Company (supra). Following the same also we hold that the learned Pr. CIT could not have exercised his revisionary powers since the claim of the assessee had been decided in the preceding year itself and without disturbing the same it could not have been dislodged in the impugned year. 25. In view of the above we set aside the order of the learn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ench in the aforesaid order in the immediately preceding assessment year considering the identical Project i.e. Thural Project in paragraphs 26 to 29 of its order. For ready reference the same is reproduced hereunder : 26. The 2 n d issue raised by the learned Pr. CIT is that the assessee has claimed 80IA on profits derived from the project of water supply and from the perusal of the trading account it is seen that a payment of Rs. 2,92,48,936/-had been made for job work done by subcontractors. As per the learned Pr. CIT proportionate profits earned on the job work executed by a subcontractor was not eligible for deduction under section 80IA and since this issue had not been examined by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings it had resulted in loss of revenue causing prejudice to the revenue. 27 Before us Ld. counsel of the assessee reiterated the contentions made in relation to the previous issue that the examination of the claim of the assessee for deduction under section 80IA had been done in detail by the Assessing Officer and after examining the same the Assessing Officer had allowed the claim. The Ld. counsel for the asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee's claim for deduction under section 80IA was examined in all respects by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings and duly allowed. Moreover the fact that the assessee had been allowed deduction on the same pattern in the preceding and succeeding years lends credence to the allowance of the claim by the Assessing Officer in the impugned year also. Further we find that the learned Pr. CIT has no basis at all for stating that the profit earned on account of job work got done by subcontractors was a separate contract which was not eligible for deduction under section 80IA of the Act. What can be gathered from the findings of the learned Pr. CIT is that the assessee is eligible for deduction under section 80IA only on account of work/contract/project executed by it. We find that this understanding of the provisions of section 80IA is incorrect and has no judicial precedents at all and on account of the same we hold that there is no error in the order of the Assessing Officer on this count also and set aside the same for this reason. 4.16 A perusal of the same shows that seemingly after having raised the issue the Pr. CIT, Chandigarh did no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the order vis-a-vis the applicability of the provisions of section 80IA(8)/80IA (10) of the Act and so we find that the learned Pr. CIT has failed to point any error in the order of the Assessing Officer in this regard. Further as stated above the issue had been examined during assessment proceedings as held above by us and therefore there was no error in the order of the Assessing Officer. We therefore set aside the order of the learned Pr. CIT on this count also. 4.18 Accordingly we find that infact there is nothing on record except the suspicion of the Department that the assessing officer has not carried out adequate enquiries. We have gone through the record and seen that the issues have been enquired into replies have been placed on record nothing has been brought by the Department to show that the view taken by the assessing officer was incorrect on facts. The requisite agreements alongwith site plan Schedule etc. attached thereto were all available before the AO and before the Pr. CIT alongwith photographs etc. No effort to distinguish the Contract entered into with Himachal Pradesh Govt. in respect of Thural Project with the subsequent contracts e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uhati High Court in the case of Bongaigaon Refinery and Petrochemical 287 ITR 120 (Gau) where the Court at page 131 para 17 and 18 held as under: "17. Entertainment of a view different from the one adopted by the Assessing Officer, if plausible would not clothe the Commissioner with the power to interfere therewith under the said provision of the Act. Differently put, an error within the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer on an evaluation of the materials available would not be exposed to interference in exercise of suomotu revisional powers under section 263 of the Act. The provision though permits the Commissioner to initiate an enquiry as he may deem necessary does not authorise a roving probe into the facts with the disposition to pick out errors to sustain the eventual interference. This assumes great significance in the context of the statutory frame work of the Act outlining the jurisdictional contours of different authorities to adjudicate the issues as legislatively stipulated. The Commissioner in exercise of his revisional powers cannot arrogate to himself a status to surrogate the other authorities and supplant their roles under the Act. 18. The jurisdiction....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be at liberty to reargue the entire case cannot be countenanced. Unless and until the Revenue demonstrates that the order has been passed without due and adequate enquiry or an error which is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue is pointed out only then the order passed can be upheld. Merely because the assessee would have an opportunity available before the Assessing Officer once again cannot be said to be a justifiable reason for setting aside an assessment order. If the said argument is accepted, then each and every assessment order can be set aside as opportunity to the assessee is any way granted by the Rule of Law. 5.2 Before parting, we may also refer to the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs Goyal Private Family Specific Trust (1988) 171 ITR 698, 701-702 (All). A perusal of the said decision would show that the Court has held in unambiguous terms that merely because the orders of the Assessing Officer are brief and cryptic, the said fact by itself cannot be a ground for branding the assessment orders as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Court was careful to observe that writing a detailed order no doubt may ....