9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 159X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r referred to as "the Act"] for the Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19, setting aside the assessment order dated 12.04.2021 passed by National e-Assessment Centre, Delhi (Assessing Officer) [hereinafter referred to as "AO"] under section 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3A) and 143(3B) of the Act. Facts of the Case: 2. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing steel and steel metal casting and forging. The assessee filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2018-19 on 20.09.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 3,29,04,740/-. The return was selected for scrutiny under CASS, and assessment was completed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3A) and 143(3B) of the Act on 12.04.2021 by the AO, accepting the returned income without any modification. 3. During ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the revenue. 2. Ld. PCIT has grossly erred in not appreciating that in order to invoke s.263, two conditions must be fulfilled viz. the impugned assessment order must be erroneous and that error must be prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In the present case, ld. AO has passed the reasoned assessment order after analyzing all details and therefore there was no error in the impugned assessment order so as to justify action u/s.263 of the Act. Under the circumstances, the very assumption of power u/s.263 of the Act is unjustified and bad in law and therefore, order u/s.263 of the Act deserved to be quashed. 3. The subject order u/s. 263 passed by the Ld. PCIT is illegal and bad in law in absence of any finding of Ld. PCIT how t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cluding approval in Form 3CM, auditor's certificate, and computation were submitted, and therefore, the view taken by the AO was a plausible view. The revision proceedings were thus a mere change of opinion and not sustainable under law. 7. The learned Departmental Representative (DR), on the other hand, supported the revisionary order passed by the PCIT and submitted that the AO had allowed weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act without verifying the mandatory Form 3CL, and had allowed deduction @200% despite the amendment restricting the claim to 150% of expenditure from 01.04.2018. It was submitted that such failure renders the order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 8. We have carefully considered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lly, without verification of eligibility, thus rendering the assessment order unsustainable in law. 8.3. While the learned AR has argued that the AO had called for details and allowed the claim after due consideration, we find merit in the PCIT's observation that the allowance of deduction was made without satisfying the statutory mandate, particularly when submission of Form 3CL by the DSIR quantifying the eligible expenditure is a condition precedent for allowing deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act. 8.4. The assessee's reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) is also misplaced. The said decision holds that where two views are possible and the AO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
