KRISHNAPATNAM PORT COMPANY LTD., HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

We next advert to the assessee's corresponding section 263 appeals & 900/Hyd/2017 pertaining to these assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 wherein the learned PCIT has exercised its revision jurisdiction thereby terming the Assessing Officer’s assessment dt.31.3.2015 as erroneous ones causing prejudice to interest of the Revenue. We keep in mind the fact that the said assessments have already been quashed in assessee's foregoing appeals in preceding paragraphs and hold that the learned PCIT revision direction forming subject matter of adjudication have no legs to stand. The same also are also accepted in the very terms therefore.

We next advert to assessee's appeals ITA 1085 & 1086/Hyd/2017 for the A.Ys 2012-13 and 2013-14’s “abated” assessments. Its sole identical substantive grievance is that the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in treating the interest income(s) in these twin assessment years as income from “other” sources than eligible for section 80IA deduction as business income. We prima facie notice that the assessee’s income from other sources also included dividend from mutual funds and rental receipts, etc. There is no indication at all in the learned lower authorities’ orders as to whether the assessee had proved the corresponding receipt to have been “derived” from the eligible undertaking(s) or not. Faced with this situation, we deem it appropriate to restore the instant identical issue back to the Assessing Officer to be examined afresh subject to the condition that it shall be the duty and responsibility of the tax payer only to prove the foregoing clinching direct nexus between its interest and other income derived from the eligible undertaking within three effective opportunities of hearing. We are partly accepted for statistical purposes since no other ground has been pressed before us.

We are now left with the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13. The same pertains to the exercise of the PCIT’s revision jurisdiction holding the corresponding assessment dt.31.3.2015 as an erroneous one causing prejudice to the interest of Revenue on the ground that the Assessing Officer had failed to compute 115JB section MAT qua assessee's provision for bad and doubtful debts of Rs.1968.10 lakhs as per Expln.(1)(i) of the Act. Learned counsel submitted before us that the assessee had very well made simultaneous reduction from the loans and advances on the assets side of the Balance Sheet which amounted to write of of the said debts not hit by the foregoing statutory provision. Mr. Afzal quoted hon’ble Gujarat high court’s Full Bench decision in CIT Vs. Vodafone Essar Gujarat Limited dt.4.8.2017. We find no merit in the assessee's foregoing argument since it has not placed on record the corresponding books of account suggesting corresponding simultaneous reduction of the loans and apex court landmark decision in Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. Vs. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC) and hold that the learned PCIT has rightly exercised its 263 revision jurisdiction in the given facts and circumstances of the case.

To sum up, assessee's appeals 1084, 899 & 900/Hyd/2017 are allowed. Its next twin appeals ITA Nos.1085 & 1086/Hyd/2017 are allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No.901/Hyd/2017 is dismissed. Ordered accordingly. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective files.