Itta/296/2013 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) v. M/S. Raghava Estates Limited

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI I.T.T.A.No.296 of 2013 DATED: 17.7.2013 Between: The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Hyderabad. … Appellant AndM/s.Raghava Estates Ltd.,Vijayawada. …. Respondent THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI I.T.T.A.No.296 OF 2013 Judgment:(per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated4.8.2011 of the learned Tribunal and is sought to be admitted on thefollowing suggested question of law: 1)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the learned Tribunal is correct in setting aside theorder of the Commissioner of Income Tax passed underSection 263 of the Income Tax Act ?case, the learned Tribunal is correct in setting aside theorder of the Commissioner of Income Tax passed underSection 263 of the Income Tax Act ? The learned Tribunal came to the fact finding as follows: “From the discussions made in the appeal filed bythe revenue for the assessment year 2006-07 in thepreceding paragraphs, it is clear that the issue of allowingdeduction under Section 801B(10) of the Act in respect of“Narayanapuram Housing Colony” is a debatable issue onwhich two views are possible.” The learned Tribunal further found on fact that the AssessingOfficer has taken one of the two possible views in the assessment order. From the aforesaid fact findings of the learned Tribunal, it is thusclear that the Commissioner of Income Tax should not have invoked the jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act as it is settled position of law that if there is a debatable issue and when two views are involved and ifthe Assessing Officer takes one of the two possible views, theCommissioner of Income Tax cannot substitute his views to attract theprovisions of Section 263 of the Act. The learned Tribunal has recordedcorrect legal position by dismissing the revenue’s contentions andallowing the assessee’s contentions. Hence, we dismiss this appeal. ___________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ _________________ G. ROHINI, J 17.07.2013 pnb