BROADWAY OVERSEAS LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals arise out of a joint order dt 30th Oct., 2008 (Annex. A -1) passed by the Income -tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as, the Tribunal) in ITA Nos. 327 and 328/Asr/2008 pertaining to the asst. yrs. 2001 -02 and 2003 -04. Both the appeals have been taken up together as question of law involved therein is the same. For convenience and clarity, facts of appeal No. 234 of 2009 are being referred to.

(2.) THE appellant -assessee is engaged in the manufacture and export of fence fittings. Assessment for the asst. yr. 2001 -02 was finalised under s. 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) by the AO on 27th March, 2006. The assessee had claimed deduction under ss. 80HHC and 80 -IB of the Act. The deduction under s. 80HHC of the Act was allowed at Rs. 1,48,94,112 without reducing therefrom the deduction allowed under s. 80 -IB at Rs. 47,35,855.

(3.) ASSAILING powers of the CIT of revision under s. 263 of the IT Act, 1961, seeking support from Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT : : (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) : (2000) 159 CTR (SC) 1, it is claimed by the appellant -assessee that if order of the AO had incidentally resulted in loss to the Revenue, it could not be said to be erroneous particularly when the AO had adopted one of many possible views. It Is claimed that merely because the CIT took recourse to another possible view, he could not have Invoked s. 263 of the Act, as in addition to being prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, order of the AO co -jointly was required to be adjudged erroneous as well. To buttress his argument, counsel for the appellant has referred to following extract from Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (supra):