9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 928X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which was accepted by the AO. In our opinion, the AO has taken a plausible view which also appears to be correct and therefore the ld. PCIT cannot invoke jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act to substitute his view for that of the AO. The case of the assessee finds support from the decision of Gabreal India Ltd. [ 1993 (4) TMI 55 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] PCIT has simply exercised jurisdiction by giving directions to the AO without pointing out as to how the view taken by the AO was wrong thereby rendering the assessment passed him his as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The case of assessee finds support from the decision of D. G. Housing [ 2012 (3) TMI 227 - DELHI HIGH COURT] wherein has held that it is incumbent upon the PC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... framed on 13.11.2017 assessing total loss at Rs. 22,49,89,667/- thereafter the assessment record was called for by the PCIT and he observed that while framing the assessment that AO has not examined the issue as mentioned in Para 2(i) to (v) and accordingly issued notice u/s 263 of the Act dated 19.1.2021 which was replied by the assessee vide written submissions dated 27.03.2021 explaining each and every point and submitting that the order passed by the AO is not erroneous and prejudice to the interest of the revenue. However the ld. PCIT after taking into consideration the reply of the assessee revised the assessment vide order dated 13.11.2017 passed u/s 263 of the Act directing the AO to frame and pass the fresh assessment order after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act has specifically called for the details of miscellaneous expenses includes service tax amounting to Rs. 1,82,00,000/- and the assessee has filed reply to the said notice vide written submissions dated 22.08.2016furnishing all the details including that the service tax vide para 15 with details of miscellaneous expenses available at page no. 234 of the PB. The Ld. A.R therefore submitted that the issue has been examined by the AO and a plausible view has been taken. Similarly in respect of second issue as raised in show cause notice para 2(v) which relates to disallowance provisions for warranties while computing book profit for the purpose of section 115JB of the Act amounting to Rs. 9,14,90,000/-, it was submitted that the said iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tter to the file of AO to frame the assessment de novo on this issue. The Ld. A.R therefore prayed that in view of the above legal position the exercise of revisionary jurisdiction by the ld. PCIT may kindly be quashed. 8. The Ld. D.R on the other hand relied on the order of PCIT heavily. The ld. CIT(DR) submitted that the fact that the AO in the set aside proceedings also found that these two issues need to be added to the income of the assessee and consequently added to the income of the assessee. The ld CIT(DR) vehemently pleaded that the there is no appeal available to the revenue against the order of the AO and only the exercise of revisionary jurisdiction is one of the remedy provided under the Act to correct the erroneous assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee specifically replied the issues raised vide written submissions dated 22.08.2016 and offered its explanation as to why these items did not warrant disallowance or addition which was accepted by the AO. In our opinion, the AO has taken a plausible view which also appears to be correct and therefore the ld. PCIT cannot invoke jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act to substitute his view for that of the AO. The case of the assessee finds support from the decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case Gabreal India Ltd. (supra) wherein the Hon ble High Court has held as under: 14. We, therefore, hold that in order to exercise power under sub-section (1) of section 263 of the Act there must be material before the Commissioner to consider that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n by the AO was wrong thereby rendering the assessment passed him his as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The case of assessee finds support from the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of D. G. Housing vs. ITO [2012] 343 ITR 329(Del) wherein the Hon ble High Court has held that it is incumbent upon the PCIT to record an objective findings as to how the issues raised in the revisionary proceedings has rendered the assessment as erroneous. 9.2. In view of the above facts and legal position, we are of the considered opinion that the revisionary jurisdiction has been invalidly invoked and consequently we are inclined to quash the revisionary jurisdiction exercised by the PCIT. 10. In the result, the appeal of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
