No Sec. 263 Revision if View Taken by AO Was Plausible View Supported by CBDT Circular No. 16/2017 | ITAT

  • Blog|News|Income Tax|
  • 4 Min Read
  • By Taxmann
  • |
  • Last Updated on 4 September, 2023

Recent Posts

Blog, News, GST & Customs

[Opinion] Form GST DRC-03A | A Saga of Deeming Payments

Blog, News, GST & Customs

HC Set Aside Cancellation of GST Registration Without Following Proper Physical Verification Procedure

Latest from Taxmann

section 263 revision

Case Details: Agrani Buildestate v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax - [2023] 153 taxmann.com 300 (Jaipur-Trib.)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

    • Sandeep Gosain, Judicial Member & Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai, Accountant Member
    • Rajeev Sogani, CA for the Appellant.
    • A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

Assessee-firm was engaged in the business of letting out properties. Since income earned was from letting out properties along with various services to lessees, the income was offered for tax under the head income from business and profession. The very basis for partnership was to carry on business. The partnership deed also categorically provided for carrying on the business of leasing, managing, and maintaining the property.

During the assessment proceedings, a detailed questionnaire was issued by the Assessing Officer (AO) seeking pinpointed queries about the nature of business activities and verification of receipts. The nature of the business was explained, the partnership deed was submitted, and a complete explanation was rendered regarding income falling under the head ‘ income from business and profession’.

Reference was also drawn to CBDT’s Circular No. 16/2017 dated 25-4-2017. On being convinced of the facts and legal position, AO accepted the assessee’s explanation and assessed the income under the head ‘ income from business and profession.’

However, in the exercise of his jurisdictional power under section 263, the commissioner held that income from property under reference was in the nature of rental income and not business income.

Aggrieved-assessee filed an appeal to the Jaipur Tribunal.

ITAT Held

The Tribunal held that the scope of revision jurisdiction under section 263 is very specific, limited, and different from appellate jurisdiction. The law contained in section 263 does not allow the commissioner to impose his view over the judicious view adopted by the AO unless the view adopted by the AO is established to be not at all sustainable in law.

In the instant case, the view of AO was also supported by the CBDT Circular. AO was also duty-bound to follow the directions of CBDT, more so when specifically brought to his notice by the assessee during the assessment proceedings.

After adequate enquiry, AO has taken a reasonable view, and accordingly, the revision under section 263 is not permissible merely because the commissioner may entertain a different view on the issue. The stand adopted by AO was plausibly supported by the CBDT Circular and, therefore, cannot be said to be erroneous in terms of the provisions of section 263.

List of Cases Reviewed

List of Cases Referred to

Disclaimer: The content/information published on the website is only for general information of the user and shall not be construed as legal advice. While the Taxmann has exercised reasonable efforts to ensure the veracity of information/content published, Taxmann shall be under no liability in any manner whatsoever for incorrect information, if any.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

«
»

Everything on Tax and Corporate Laws of India

To subscribe to our weekly newsletter please log in/register on Taxmann.com

Author: Taxmann

Taxmann Publications has a dedicated in-house Research & Editorial Team. This team consists of a team of Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, and Lawyers. This team works under the guidance and supervision of editor-in-chief Mr Rakesh Bhargava.

The Research and Editorial Team is responsible for developing reliable and accurate content for the readers. The team follows the six-sigma approach to achieve the benchmark of zero error in its publications and research platforms. The team ensures that the following publication guidelines are thoroughly followed while developing the content:

  • The statutory material is obtained only from the authorized and reliable sources
  • All the latest developments in the judicial and legislative fields are covered
  • Prepare the analytical write-ups on current, controversial, and important issues to help the readers to understand the concept and its implications
  • Every content published by Taxmann is complete, accurate and lucid
  • All evidence-based statements are supported with proper reference to Section, Circular No., Notification No. or citations
  • The golden rules of grammar, style and consistency are thoroughly followed
  • Font and size that's easy to read and remain consistent across all imprint and digital publications are applied