Vinay Vohra & Co.

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

Best Taxation Service

We are a thriving firm of Chartered Accountants with the goal of providing a one-stop shop for all financial services.

Business Strategy & Growth

We believe integrity is the quintessential value that is the engine behind getting things done in the organization.

Highly Dedicated Worker

You can put your trust in the economic realm and expect the best outcome. With a strong team that possesses the necessary skill set .

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

The post No Sec. 263 Revision if View Taken by AO Was Plausible View Supported by CBDT Circular No. 16/2017 | ITAT appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

1

Auditing - Assurance

2

Goods & Services Tax

3

Investment in India by Foreign Nationals & NRI's

4

Accounting & Bookkeeping

5

International Taxation

6

Startup Services

7

Mergers & Acquisition Advisory

8

Income Tax

9

Corporate Financial Services

10

Indian Business Advisory Service
Have Any Question?

Always willing to lend a hand and answer any questions you may have. It would be great if you could contact us.

Newsletter

Signup our newsletter to get update information, insight or news