Commissioner of Income Tax-I, vs. M/s. Padmalaya Telefilms Ltd.,

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

I.T.T.A.No.54 of 2014

Date: 21.02.2014

Between: Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Hyderabad

.....Appellant AND M/s Padmalaya Telefilms Ltd., Hyderabad

...Respondent

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

I.T.T.A.No.54 of 2014

JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta )

This appeal is sought to be preferred and admitted against the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal dated 13th September 2013 in relation to the assessment year 2003-04 on the following suggested question of law: “ Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT is correct in setting aside the order of the CIT under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act without appreciating that the view taken by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law as ‘impugned expenditure incurred on new projects was capital expenditure’ and was also not debited to the Profit and Loss Account by the assessee?”

We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and gone through unnecessarily the lengthy judgment and order of the learned Tribunal. From the narration of the fact of the learned Tribunal, we notice that the Assessing Officer has allowed necessary deduction under law holding the same to be revenue expenditure. But the Commissioner of Income Tax thought that this decision of the Assessing Officer is erroneous and according to him, it should be capital expenditure. After going through the fact, the learned Tribunal held that it is one of the possible views. Therefore, the learned Tribunal did not accept the action of the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is settled position of law as has been recorded by the learned

Tribunal that when one of the two possible view is taken by the Assessing Officer, the jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be exercised just because another view is possible. Moreover, the learned Tribunal after scrutinizing from the record held that the Assessing Officer, after verifying all the accounts and documents, has allowed the deduction as revenue expenditure. Therefore, we feel that nothing is to be decided in this matter. Under these circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the Judgment and order of the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. No order as to costs.

___________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ

__________________

SANJAY KUMAR, J

21-.2-2014 Gsn