The Commissioner Of Income Tax Iii, Pune v. M/S. Sicom Venture Capital Fund

ASN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.457 OF 2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax III, Pune...Appellant.v. M/s. Sicom Venture Capital Fund...Respondent. Mr. Vimal Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Padma Diwakar for the Appellant.Mrs. Neha Palshikar Bhide for the Respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ. DATE : 4[th] December, 2012 PC: Whether the ITAT was justified in quashing the order passed by the CIT under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is the basic question raised in this appeal. 2)The assessment year involved herein is A.Y. 2003-04. 3)The dispute in the present case is whether the interest income from bank deposits is covered under Section 10(23FB) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the assessment order passed in the assessment year in question the Assessing officer allowed the claim of the assessee by recording a finding that the assessee fulfilled the conditions laid down under Section 10 ASN (23FB) of the Act. 4)Subsequently, the CIT passed an order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 holding that the assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as the interest income from bank deposits was not covered under Section 10 (23FB) of the Act. 5)The ITAT in Para-5 of its order has recorded a finding that there existed two views and, in fact, in assessment year 2005-06 the revenue has accepted the decision of the CIT(A) holding that the relief under Section 10(23FB) of the Act was available on the same issue. In these circumstances, no fault can be found with the decision of the ITAT in holding that the issue was debatable and therefore, CIT was not justified in invoking the jurisdiction under Section-263 of the Act. Accordingly, we see no reason to entertain the appeal. 6)The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs. (M.S.SANKLECHA, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)