EIH Associated Hotels Limited Vs CIT (Madras High Court)
Madras High Court held that issue relating to pre-closure premium was already considered and allowed by the assessing authority. Thus, invocation of revisionary power u/s. 263 for mere disagreement with the view of the assessing authority is unjustified in law.
Facts- An order of assessment was passed on 30.11.2007 in respect of AY 05 – 06. The assessing authority notes in the scrutiny order that notices under Section 143(2), including on 09.10.2006, had been issued. The appellant had been represented at the time of assessment and all particulars as sought for had been submitted. The assessment had been completed on 30.11.2007 making certain adjustments to the claim of depreciation and a disallowance under Section 43B of the Act. As a consequence, the loss returned had been reduced.
While so, notice u/s 263 dated 25.02.2010 had come to be issued, proposing revision of the assessment. The appellant challenges an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT/Tribunal) confirming an order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax u/s. 263 for AY 05 – 06.
Conclusion- In the present case the issue relating to pre-closure premium has not slipped the attention of the officer. The response to the audit objection reveals that Officer has applied his mind to the legal issue that arises, has considered the stand of the assessee and thereafter come to the conclusion that the claim of the appellant is correct and liable to be allowed.
