2025 (6) TMI 1986

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-2019. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is a company duly incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act. It is an undertaking of the State Government of Kerala. It is engaged in the business of Chitti Investment Services. The original return of income for the assessment year 2018-2019 was filed on 26th October, 2018 disclosing a total income of Rs. 279,20,77,140. The same was revised on 20th March, 2019 at a total income of Rs. 252,90,33,220. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the NFAC vide order dated 5th March, 2021 passed u/s.143(3A) read with section 143(3B) of the Act at a total income of Rs. 396,29,16,115. While doing so, the Assessing Officer (AO) made following disa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing & Marketing) Corporation Ltd. v. ACIT (2022) 134 taxmann.com 11 (SC) proceeded to hold that the guarantee commission fee paid to the State Government of Kerala, falls within the ambit of sec.40(a)(iib) of the Act, and therefore, in the absence of inquiry on the part of the AO, the assessment order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Accordingly, set aside the assessment order to the file of the AO to pass a fresh order after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. Being aggrieved by the above order, the appellant is in appeal before us, in the present appeal. It is submitted that the PCIT o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....a case where the Assessing Officer examined the claim took one of the plausible views, the assessment order cannot be termed as an "erroneous". 8. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the AO had not examined the applicability or otherwise of the provisions of sec.40(a)(iib) of the Act in respect of the payment of guarantee commission fees paid by the appellant company to the State Government of Kerala. Non-examination of the issue is clearly palpable and falls within the meaning of an error, and therefore, amenable to the jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act. In this connection, it is apt to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Cochin International Airport Limited v. ACIT in ITA No.77 of 20....