Itta/54/2014 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-I v. M/S. Padmalaya Telefilms Ltd

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTAANDHON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A.No.54 of 2014 Date: 21.02.2014 Between:Commissioner of Income Tax-I,Hyderabad .....Appellant AND M/s Padmalaya Telefilms Ltd.,Hyderabad ...Respondent HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTAANDHON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A.No.54 of 2014 JUDGMENT:(per Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta ) This appeal is sought to be preferred and admitted againstthe judgment and order of the learned Tribunal dated 13[th]September 2013 in relation to the assessment year 2003-04 on thefollowing suggested question of law: “ Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the ITAT is correct insetting aside the order of the CIT under Section 263of the Income Tax Act without appreciating that theview taken by the Assessing Officer is unsustainablein law as ‘impugned expenditure incurred on newprojects was capital expenditure’ and was also notdebited to the Profit and Loss Account by theassessee?” We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant andgone through unnecessarily the lengthy judgment and order of thelearned Tribunal. From the narration of the fact of the learned Tribunal, wenotice that the Assessing Officer has allowed necessary deductionunder law holding the same to be revenue expenditure. But theCommissioner of Income Tax thought that this decision of theAssessing Officer is erroneous and according to him, it should becapital expenditure. After going through the fact, the learnedTribunal held that it is one of the possible views. Therefore, thelearned Tribunal did not accept the action of the Commissioner ofIncome Tax under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It issettled position of law as has been recorded by the learned Tribunal that when one of the two possible view is taken by theAssessing Officer, the jurisdiction under Section 263 of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 cannot be exercised just because anotherview is possible. Moreover, the learned Tribunal after scrutinizingfrom the record held that the Assessing Officer, after verifying allthe accounts and documents, has allowed the deduction asrevenue expenditure. Therefore, we feel that nothing is to bedecided in this matter. Under these circumstances, we do not find any reason tointerfere with the Judgment and order of the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. MiscellaneousPetitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. No order as tocosts. ___________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ __________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J 21-.2-2014 Gsn