9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 224X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order erroneous since the AO had not examined the case. PCIT goes on to hold the assessment order erroneous merely for the reason that these explanations and documents were not filed to the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings and therefore, the Assessing Officer did not make proper inquiries on this issue. It is clearly evident from the findings of the Ld. PCIT, as noted above by us, that in very clear terms he stated to be satisfied with the explanation of the assessee regarding the irregularities noted by him in the assessment order and for which purpose he assumed jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act for revision of the assessment order. It is but obvious that as per ld. PCIT himself there was no error in the assessment order in allowing the above claims to the assessee. PCIT was satisfied that these claims had been rightly allowed to the assessee on the basis of the assessee s explanation and the documents filed before him. When the ld. PCIT himself was satisfied that there was no error in the order of the Assessing Officer vis- -vis irregularities noted by him initially, there can be no case for exercising any revisionary power u/s 263 of the Act. The provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned CIT has grievously erred in holding that the appellant is not entitled to the claim of additional depreciation of Rs. 190,48,38,998/-. (5) That on facts, and in law the learned CIT has grievously erred in setting aside the assessment order and directing to frame fresh assessment order on the issue of claim of Bad Debts of Rs. 3,28,28,616/-, without pointing any error in appellant s claim. 3. The arguments of the assessee in the present case against the order passed u/s 263 of the Act were two-fold. 3.1 With respect to the error of incorrect allowance of additional depreciation by the Assessing Officer as noted by the ld. PCIT, the ld. Counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that this issue was covered against the assessee by the decision of the ITAT Ahmedabad Benches in the case of Dakshin Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd. Vs. PCIT in ITA No. 1527/Ahd/2019, dated 30.03.2022. 3.2 With respect to the issue of claim of bad debts wrongly allowed by the Assessing Officer as noted by the ld. PCIT, the contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee was that there was no finding of any error by the ld. PCIT with respect to this issue. 4. Having said so, we shall now proceed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Counsel for the assessee has fairly conceded that he has no case since an identical issue of incorrect allowance on additional depreciation in identical set of facts, and on which revisionary jurisdiction was exercised u/s 263 of the Act, was upheld by the ITAT in the case of Dakshin Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd. (supra). Copy of the order was placed before us. 6.1. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that with respect to the finding of error by the Ld. PCIT in the assessment order on account of incorrect allowance of claim of additional depreciation, the same is confirmed. 7. With respect to the claim of bad debts allegedly wrongly allowed by the AO, the order of the ld. PCIT reveals that the assessee submitted explanation to him during revisionary proceedings which are reproduced at page nos. 2 3 of the order as under:- Wrong claim of Bad Debts: - It is stated in the notice that the amount of provision for Bad or Doubtful Debts added back in the computation of total income is wrong. It is stated that the company has added back only an amount of Rs. 19,15,78,384/- in respect of Provision for Bad Debts in the IT Return as against Rs. 3,28,28,616/- during the year. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resulted in assessment order being erroneous as proper enquiries examination of the material evidence in the light of provisions was not done. 9. Having so noted, the ld. PCIT goes on to hold the assessment order erroneous merely for the reason that these explanations and documents were not filed to the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings and therefore, the Assessing Officer did not make proper inquiries on this issue. 10. It is clearly evident from the findings of the Ld. PCIT, as noted above by us, that in very clear terms he stated to be satisfied with the explanation of the assessee regarding the irregularities noted by him in the assessment order and for which purpose he assumed jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act for revision of the assessment order. 11. It is but obvious that as per ld. PCIT himself there was no error in the assessment order in allowing the above claims to the assessee. The ld. PCIT was satisfied that these claims had been rightly allowed to the assessee on the basis of the assessee s explanation and the documents filed before him. When the ld. PCIT himself was satisfied that there was no error in the order of the Assessing Officer vis- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee s claim was eligible as per law. At the cost of repetition, it may be stated that the powers of revision can be exercised only when the orders are found to be in error with regard to any application of law or assumption of fact noted by the authorities passing the orders. In the absence of any such error causing prejudice to the Revenue being noted, the revisionary powers cannot be exercised. 14. In view of the same, we have no hesitation in holding that the order passed by the ld. PCIT u/s 263 of the Act is not sustainable in law in the absence of any error noted by him in the assessment order passed the issue of allowance of claim of bad debts. 15. In view of the above, the order of the ld. PCIT is confirmed on the issue of incorrect claim of additional depreciation following the order of the Tribunal in the case of Dakshin Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd. (supra); however, with respect to ld. PCIT s finding that the assessment order being erroneous on account of allowance of claim of bad debts, the same is set aside since we find that the ld. PCIT has noted satisfaction subsequently with the assessee s claim of bad debts as being in order. There is no finding of error, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
