Itxa/2174/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -I Pune v. A.g. Joshi And Co

sas IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2174 OF 2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Pune ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. A.G. Joshi & Co. ..Respondent. Mr. Vimal Gupta, Senior Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Mihir Naniwadekar for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ. DATED : 4TH MARCH, 2013 P.C. :- 1.In this appeal by the revenue for the assessment year 2004-05, following question of law has been raised for our consideration:- “ Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax passed u/s.263 of the Act in spite of the fact that the A.O.'S order passed u/s.143(3) of the Act was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue ? ” 2.The basic question before the authorities was whether the assessing officer was justified in extending the benefit under Section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) to the respondent's project approved and completed before 1[st] April, 2005. The CIT(A) under Section 263 of the Act passed an order seeking to revise the order of the assessing officer on the ground that the benefit of Section 80IB(10) of the Act is not available in view of the amendment to Section 80IB(10) of the Act with effect from 1[st] April, 2005 even if the project was approved and completed before 1[st] April, 2005. In appeal, the Tribunal has recorded a fact that on 26[th] March, 2009 when the CIT(A) invoked jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act, there were conflicting views of the Tribunal with regard to the applicablity of the amended provisions to projects approved and completed prior to amended Act. In these circumstances, when there were two views on the applicability of the amended provisions of Section 80IB(10) of the Act, the Tribunal held that invocation of Section 263 of the Act is not justified. The aforesaid conclusion was reached by following the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of CIT V/s. Max India Ltd. reported in [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC). In view of the above, we see no reason to entertain the proposed question of law. 3.Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)