2020 (9) TMI 875

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ment year 2007-08. The appeal was admitted by a bench of this Court vide order dated 12.08.2014 on the following substantial question of law: (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances and in law the Tribunal was correct in holding that revision under Section 263 of the Act was not permissible, as the assessee had furnished all the details without appreciating the fact that, Assessing Officer has failed to examine the expenditure incurred by the assessee towards the exempt income as required under Section 14A of the Act? 2. Facts leading to filing of the appeal briefly stated are that the assessee is engaged in business of investment and sale of filtration, equipment and spares and service. The assessee filed the return o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cted by the Assessing Officer is inadequate. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed by the revenue. 4. Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the Tribunal ought to have appreciated that the Assessing Officer has failed to conduct any enquiry with reference to the expenditure debited by the assessee. It is further submitted that the Tribunal grossly erred in holding that invocation of revisional powers under Section 263 of the Act was not permissible as the assessee had furnished all the details without appreciating the fact that Assessing Officer has failed to examine the incurring of expenditure by assessee towards exempt income as required under Section 14A of the Act. On the other hand, learned counsel....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on with an erroneous order passed by the Assessing Officer and every loss of revenue as a consequence of the order of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. It was further held that where two views are possible and the Income Tax Officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, the order passed by the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The principles laid down in the aforesaid decision were reiterated by the Supreme Court in 'CIT VS. MAX INDIA LTD.,' 295 ITR 282 (SC) and recently in 'ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD. AND ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.', CIVIL APPEAL NO.2773/2020 DECIDED ON 17.07.2020. ....