(M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.)
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 18681/2018
LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. _____________________ Petitioner;
v.
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi 5 _________ Respondent.
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 18681/2018 and ITA No. 43/2018, decided on December 10, 2021
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. We have heard Mr. Ajay Vohra, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Udai Khanna, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. At the outset, it is required to be noted that, as such, the High Court by the impugned judgment and order has remanded the matter to the A.O. to pass a fresh order based on the independent analysis as to whether the amount raised by way of subsidy is capital or revenue in nature, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court.
3. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the petitioner that the Commissioner ought not to have exercised the powers under Section 263 of the I.T. Act and ought not to have interfered with the assessment order passed by the A.O. and, therefore, the Commissioner wrongly assumed the power, it is to be noted that, as observed by the High Court, the A.O. accepted the case on behalf of the assessee that the amounts received was capital in nature without any discussion. The High Court also noted that the order passed by the A.O. was unreasoned order. Considering the above, when the Commissioner was of the opinion that the assessment order passed by the A.O. was prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, it cannot not be said that the CIT committed any error and/or passed any order without jurisdiction.
4. In view of the above, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. The Special Leave Petition stands dismissed. However, it is observed and in fact it is specifically observed by the High Court in the impugned order that the A.O. will pass a fresh order based upon his independent analysis as to whether the amount received by way of subsidy was capital or Revenue in nature, we direct accordingly.
5. The A.O. to pass a fresh order in accordance with law and on merits without, in any way, influenced by any of the observations made by the CIT passed in exercise of powers under Section 263 of the IT Act and the observations made by the CIT shall be treated only for the purpose of exercise of powers under Section 263 only. The A.O. to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and on its own merits independently.
———
