KISHAN COLD STORAGE, JUNAGADH V. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT

ITA 21/RJT/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4311 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-01-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 08-01-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 06-02-2022
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Revision of order; Tax effect; Set aside
• Section: 263; 154; 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT [CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT] Before: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member And Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member M/s. Kishan Cold Storage, Junagadh PAN: AAOFK5811F (Appellant) Vs The Pr. CIT, Rajkot-1 (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R. Revenue by: Shri Ritesh Parmar, CIT-D.R. Date of hearing : 09-01-2024 Date of pronouncement : 12-01-2024 आदेश/ORDER PER : SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This is an appeal filed against the order dated 21-01- 2022 passed by Principal Commissioner of Incomer Income, PCIT, Rajkot-1 for assessment year 2017-18. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under:- Grounds of Appeal Tax effect relating to each ITA No. 21/Rjt/2022 Assessment Year 2017-18 I.T.A No. 21/Rjt/2022 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No Kishan Cold Storage vs. Pr. CIT 2 Ground of appeal 1 The grounds of appeal mentioned hereunder are without prejudice to one another. N.A. As appeal is against the validity of revisional jurisdiction of Pr. CIT. 2 The order passed by Pr Commissioner N.Α. of Income-tax, Rajkot-1(hereinafter referred as to the "PCIT"] is bad in law, Invalid and requires to be quashed, the same may kindly be quashed. N.A. As appeal is against the validity of revisional jurisdiction of Pr. CIT. 3 The learned Pr. CIT erred on facts as also in law in alleging that the order u/s. 143(3) As appeal is against the of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter validity of revisional referred as to the "Act"] is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue as the AO had not made proper inquiry & verification in respect of allowability of deduction claimed u/s.801B(11A) of the Act and thereby setting aside the order passed u/s.143(3) of the Act dated 10.12.2019. The order u/s 263 of the Act is totally unjustified on facts as also in law therefore the same may kindly be quashed. N.A. As appeal is against the validity of revisional jurisdiction of Pr. CIT. 4 Your Honour's appellant craves leave to add, to amend, alter, or withdraw any or more grounds of appeal on or before the hearing of appeal. N.A. As appeal is against the validity of revisional jurisdiction of Pr. CIT. 3. Return of income for assessment year 2017-18 has been filed on 20-09-2017 declaring total income at Rs. 9,97,000/- after claiming deduction u/s. 80IB(11) by the assessee. The assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act on 10-12-2019 accepting the returned income of Rs. 9,97,000/- allowing deduction u/s. 80IB(11) of Rs. 81,17,,390/-. The Pr. CIT observed that the assessee had claimed and allowed deduction u/s. 80IB(11) of the Act, the undertaking is eligible for such said deduction subject to I.T.A No. 21/Rjt/2022 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No Kishan Cold Storage vs. Pr. CIT 3 fulfillment of condition that it begins to operate such facility on or before first day of April, 1999, but before the first day of April, 2004. However, in this case, as per Form No. 10CCB, the date of commencement of operation/activity by the assessee was 01-04-2016 hence the assessee is not eligible for deduction u/s. 80IB(11) of the Act. The Assessing Officer while completing the assessment has not examined the conditions stipulated in section 80IB(11A) as the assessee is having business of processing, observation and packaging of fruits and vegetables and whether he is eligible for the same deduction or not. The Pr. CIT issued show cause notice on 09- 07-2021 u/s. 263 of the Act. After taking cognizance of the assessee’s reply/submissions, the Pr. CIT directed the Assessing Officer to complete the assessment after due inquiry and verification and quashed the earlier assessment order. 4. Being aggrieved by the order u/s. 263 of the Act passed by the PCIT, the assessee is before us. 5. The ld. A.R. submitted that though the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s. 80IB(11A) of the Act, the assessee claimed deduction u/s. 80IB(11) of the Act. The ld. A.R. submitted that the same comes under the purview of section 154 for rectification of assessment order and will not attract section 263 i.e. of revisionary powers of Pr. CIT. The ld. A.R. I.T.A No. 21/Rjt/2022 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No Kishan Cold Storage vs. Pr. CIT 4 further submitted that the assessment order is not erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and therefore section 263 order be set aside. 6. The ld. D.R. relied upon the order of Pr. CIT and submitted that since the assessee has wrongly availed the deduction under different section under which he is not eligible. The Assessing Officer has not taken cognizance of the same and passed the order without applying the proper section. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. It is pertinent to note that in the questionnaire asked by the Assessing Officer, the Assessing Officer has totally overlooked that the assessee is not eligible for deduction u/s. 80IB(11). Thus, the Assessing Officer has committed error which amounts to erroneous assessment order without looking into the proper/correct section that of section 80IB(11A) of the Act under which the assessee should have opted for deduction. Thus, this amounts to erroneous order as well as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The contention of the ld. A.R. that this is a mistake and it should have been rectified u/s. 154 will also not come in picture because the assessee has claimed deduction under the section which is not applicable to the I.T.A No. 21/Rjt/2022 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No Kishan Cold Storage vs. Pr. CIT 5 assessee and has not pointed out this mistake at the assessment proceedings or after the assessment order passed. Once, the invocation of 263 has been done by the Pr. CIT, the assessee cannot state that the same is a mistake and can be rectified u/s. 154 of the Act. This revisionary power was rightly invoked by the PCIT u/s. 263 of the Act and therefore the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 12-01-2024 Sd/- Sd/- (WASEEM AHMED) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated 12/01/2024 आदेश क त ल प अ े षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order, Assistant Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot