| The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 4260 (Mum-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 263
Where assessee declared income earned from the Govt. of Maharashtra as an agent and when AO accepted assessee as an agent and completed assessment under section 143(3) over the years, it meant that AO completed the assessment with one particular view, thereafter PCIT could not invoke revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 when two views were possible.
|
Revision under section 263 - Erroneous and prejudicial order - Assessee declared income earned from the Govt. of Maharashtra as an agent - PCIT alleged that income was not exempt by taking another possible view
Assessee claimed exemption under section 10(20A) till assessment year 2002-03. Section 10C(20A) was omitted by the Finance Act with effect from 1-4-2003. Pr.CIT alleged that no exemption was available to assessee company, following the omission of section 10(20A) and income of assessee was taxable. Thus, according to PCIT, order passed by AO under section 143(3) was erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue. Held: As decided in assessee's own case in assessment year 2014-15, it was found that assessee declared income earned from the Govt. of Maharashtra as an agent and when AO accepted assessee as an agent and completed assessment under section 143(3) over the years, it meant that AO completed the assessment with one particular view, whereas PCIT intended to correct the above view and presumed that case of assessee fell under Article 289(1) and come to a conclusion that assessee did not come under Article 289 and was subjected to tax under Income Tax Act. Therefore, that was another view in case of assessee, and could not be basis for invoking revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 when two views were possible.
Followed:CIT v. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) : 2007 TaxPub(DT) 1548 (SC).
REFERRED : Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 81 (SC) : 2000 TaxPub(DT) 1227 (SC), Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. ITO (1964) 52 ITR 524 (SC) : 1964 TaxPub(DT) 297 (SC), Russell Properties (P) Ltd. v. A. Chowdhury, Addl. CIT 1977 TaxPub(DT) 544 (Cal-HC) and Dy.CIT, Circle-1 (1) Hyderabad v. A.P. Beverages Corporation Ltd. and Vice-Versa 2017 TaxPub(DT) 540 (Hyd-Trib).
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.
A.Y. : 2015-16
IN THE ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|