{"id":18929,"date":"2020-11-04T11:42:27","date_gmt":"2020-11-04T06:12:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/?p=18929"},"modified":"2020-11-05T15:01:21","modified_gmt":"2020-11-05T09:31:21","slug":"judgement-by-karnataka-hc-ground-to-invoke-revisional-powers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/judgement-by-karnataka-hc-ground-to-invoke-revisional-powers\/","title":{"rendered":"Judgement by Karnataka HC \u2013 Ground to Invoke Revisional Powers"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p class=\"has-drop-cap\">The Karnataka HC in a recent judgement held that \u201cjust\u201d insufficiency in an enquiry or inadequacy of evidence on record cannot be taken as a ground to invoke revisional powers that are given in <strong><em>Section 263<\/em><\/strong> of <strong><em>Income Tax Act, 1961<\/em><\/strong>. This  judgement  was passed by the high court of Karnataka in the view of <strong><em>CIT Vs Cyber Park Development &amp; Construction Ltd.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-image\"><figure class=\"aligncenter\"><img decoding=\"async\" width=\"591\" height=\"340\" src=\"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/image-9.png\" alt=\"Ground to Invoke Revisional Powers\" class=\"wp-image-18932\" srcset=\"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/image-9.png 591w, https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/image-9-300x173.png 300w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 591px) 100vw, 591px\" \/><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"text-left\"><b>Read our article<\/b>:<mark style=\"background: #fffd03 !important;\"><a href=\"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/10-reasons-why-filing-income-tax-return-is-vital-for-you\/\">10 Reasons Why Filing Income Tax Return Is Vital For You<\/a><\/mark><\/p>\n\n\n\n<div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_82_2 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title ez-toc-toggle\" style=\"cursor:pointer\">Page Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #999;color:#999\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #999;color:#999\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 eztoc-toggle-hide-by-default' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/judgement-by-karnataka-hc-ground-to-invoke-revisional-powers\/#Facts_of_the_Case_%E2%80%93_CIT_Vs_Cyber_Park_Development_Construction_Ltd\" >Facts of the Case &#8211; CIT Vs Cyber\nPark Development &amp; Construction Ltd<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/judgement-by-karnataka-hc-ground-to-invoke-revisional-powers\/#Issues_Raised_%E2%80%93_CIT_Vs_Cyber_Park_Development_Construction_Ltd\" >Issues Raised &#8211; CIT Vs Cyber Park\nDevelopment &amp; Construction Ltd<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/judgement-by-karnataka-hc-ground-to-invoke-revisional-powers\/#Filing_of_Appeal\" >Filing of Appeal<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/judgement-by-karnataka-hc-ground-to-invoke-revisional-powers\/#Judgement_By_Divisional_Bench\" >Judgement By Divisional Bench<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/judgement-by-karnataka-hc-ground-to-invoke-revisional-powers\/#Conclusion\" >Conclusion<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Facts_of_the_Case_%E2%80%93_CIT_Vs_Cyber_Park_Development_Construction_Ltd\"><\/span>Facts of the Case &#8211; CIT Vs Cyber\nPark Development &amp; Construction Ltd<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The assessee, Cyber Park Development is involved in the business of developing, maintaining &amp; operating infrastructure amenities for software and related sectors. The assessee has <a href=\"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/income-tax-return-filing\"><strong>filed Income Tax Return<\/strong><\/a> for the AY 2006-2007 stating a loss of INR 10, 23, 09,300. A legal notice was issued to the assessee under <strong><em>Section 143(2)<\/em><\/strong> of the Income Tax Act related to ground to invoke revisional powers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Issues_Raised_%E2%80%93_CIT_Vs_Cyber_Park_Development_Construction_Ltd\"><\/span>Issues Raised &#8211; CIT Vs Cyber Park\nDevelopment &amp; Construction Ltd<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The issues raised\nby the revenue department that whether the Tribunal was correct in holding the\nassessee, who has provided the details that the rights to hold lease were intangible\nbefore the Assessing Officer and it has to be considered that the details were\ndeemed to be examined related to the ground to invoke revisional powers. Relief\nhas to be granted by the Assessing Officer in favor of the assessee and the\nfinding should be recorded by the Commissioner to the contrary.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Assessing\nOfficer allowed depreciation @ 25% on the right to hold land that was organized\nas an intangible asset. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Filing_of_Appeal\"><\/span>Filing of Appeal<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The Commissioner\nof Income Tax (Appeals) started the proceedings under Section 263 of the Income\nTax Act and directed the Assessing Officer to again start the assessment according\nto the observations made in the order.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Being distressed,\nthe assessee then filed for an appeal before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal\n(ITAT) that allowed the appeal chosen by the assessee.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Judgement_By_Divisional_Bench\"><\/span>Judgement By Divisional Bench<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The division judge bench of Justice H.T. Narendra Prasad &amp; <strong><em>Alok Aradhe<\/em><\/strong><sup><a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Alok_Aradhe\"><strong><em>[1]<\/em><\/strong><\/a><\/sup> said that after examination of Section 263 properly, it is apparent that twin conditions are necessary to be satisfied for exercising revisional jurisdiction as per Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. The order of the Assessing Officer is flawed and that it is detrimental to the interest of the revenue on account of error in the assessment order.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Passing the Order<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The court verified\nthe order of the tribunal where they found that the Assessing Officer on approval\nof evidence on record has permitted depreciation on intangible assets. The\nCommissioner of Income Tax &#8211; Appeals while stating the order as per Section 263\nof the Income Tax Act held that the verification &amp; enquiry made by the\nAssessing Officer is insufficient and the land can\u2019t be viewed as intangible\nasset.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Conclusion\"><\/span>Conclusion <span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The Tribunal also has held that just insufficiency in an enquiry or inadequacy of evidence on record cannot be taken as a ground to invoke revisional powers under Section 263 of the Act. The court also held that the decision taken by the Tribunal is in agreement with well-settled legal standards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"text-left\"><b>Read our article<\/b>:<mark style=\"background: #fffd03 !important;\"><a href=\"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/overview-on-income-tax-23rd-amendment-rules-2020\/\">Overview on Income Tax (23rd Amendment) Rules, 2020<\/a><\/mark><\/p>\n\n\n<a href=\"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/ITA137-14-05-10-2020.pdf\" class=\"pdfemb-viewer\" style=\"\" data-width=\"max\" data-height=\"max\"  data-toolbar=\"bottom\" data-toolbar-fixed=\"off\">ITA137-14-05-10-2020<br\/><\/a>\n<p class=\"wp-block-pdfemb-pdf-embedder-viewer\"><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Karnataka HC in a recent judgement held that \u201cjust\u201d insufficiency in an enquiry or inadequacy of evidence on record cannot be taken as a ground to invoke revisional powers that are given in Section 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961. This judgement was passed by the high court of Karnataka in the view of [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":18,"featured_media":18933,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[10,153],"tags":[1176],"acf":{"service_id":"403"},"authorName":"Sakshi Srivastava","authorImageUrl":"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/03\/IMG-20180130-WA0007.jpg","authorDescription":"Sakshi has pursued B.B.A.LL.B.(IPR Hons.). She is an avid reader and is keen to gather and share her knowledge on the subjects relating to IPR, Company Law and GST. Priorly she has worked as a legal researcher and vide her articles she aims at improving the core knowledge of the subjects to the masses.","postViews":5890,"readingTime":2,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18929"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/18"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=18929"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18929\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":19019,"href":"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18929\/revisions\/19019"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/18933"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=18929"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=18929"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=18929"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}