TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (1) TMI 791
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r dated 19.04.2020 on the following substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Commissioner of Income Tax was fully justified in invoking the provisions of Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act is to be allowed after deduction of the amount of profit allowed as deduction under Section 80IB of the Act? (iii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in not following the decision of Madras High Court in the case of SCM Creations Vs. ACIT (2008) 304 ITR 319 (Mad), but followed the decision of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. Hindustan Mint and Agro Products (P) Ltd. (2009) 199 ITD 107 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to re- compute the deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act subjecting the same to the provisions of Section 80IA(9) of the Act if necessary. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal' for short). The tribunal by an order dated 23.11.2009 has dismissed the appeal preferred by the assessee. In the aforesaid factual background, the assessee has filed this appeal. 3. Learned Senior counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee had claimed deduction of Rs. 11,44,832/- under Section 80HHC of the Act and of Rs. 40,93,489/- under Section 80IA of the Act. It is further submitted that Commissioner of Income Tax vide order dated 11.03.2008 inter alia held ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... VS. M/S SARAVANA DEVELOPERS IN ITA NOS.68/2014 C/W 67/2017 (KARNATAKA). 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the controversy is pending before the larger bench of the Supreme Court, which is evident from perusal of 380 ITR 1 (SC) and therefore, hearing of this appeal should be deferred till the matter is adjudicated by the larger bench of the Supreme Court. It is further submitted that Section 263 of the Act provides for revisional order by the Commissioner if the same is erroneous and is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In the instant case, the assessee had not filed Form No.10CCB as required under Section 80IA(7) of the Act along with the return of income which is mandatory and therefore, asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mind. It is further submitted that failure conduct enquiry into the issues would also justify invoking powers of revision under Section 263 of the Act. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decisions in 'NATURAL STONES EXPORTS LTD. VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX, CIRCLE - 11(1)', (2014) 42 TAXMANN.COM 467 (KARNATAKA), 'INCOME TAX OFFICER VS. SMT. MANDIRA D. VAKHARIA', (2001) 117 TAXMAN 236 (KARNATAKA), 'COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI VS. AMITABH BACHCHAN, (2016) 69 TAXMANN.COM 170 (SC), ''MALABAR INDUSTRIAL COMPANY VS. CIT', 243 ITR 83. 6. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Before proceeding further....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Revenue. For the aforesaid reason and in view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the assessee, we deem it appropriate to modify the ad interim order dated 20.11.2018 and direct that the appeal be listed for hearing" The aforesaid order has not been challenged by the Revenue before the Supreme Court. Therefore the aforesaid order binds us and the submission made by learned counsel for the Revenue that the hearing of the appeal needs to be deferred does not deserve acceptance. 7. The conditions precedent for invocation of power under Section 263 of the Act namely that an order passed by an assessing officer must be prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and must be erroneous have to be fulfilled before power under section ....