Tribunal rules in favor of assessee, CIT's invocation under section 263 based on non-jurisdictional decision not valid.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the CIT's invocation of powers under section 263 based on a non-jurisdictional high court decision was not valid. It found that the AO's assessment order was not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue as it was based on a plausible interpretation of the law. The appeal was allowed, emphasizing the importance of adhering to jurisdictional court decisions and considering multiple plausible views in assessing the correctness of orders under the IT Act.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of CIT to invoke powers under section 263 based on non-jurisdictional high court decision.
2. Whether the CIT's order under section 263 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Jurisdiction of CIT
The case involved an appeal by the assessee against the order of CIT-13, Mumbai under section 263 of the IT Act for A.Y. 2011-12. The CIT invoked powers under section 263 and directed the AO not to allow deduction u/s. 80IB(10) while computing book profit u/s. 115JB of the IT Act. The key contention was whether the CIT could invoke powers under section 263 based on a non-jurisdictional high court decision. The Tribunal observed that explanation 2(d) under section 263 specifies that revision is possible only due to judgments of the jurisdictional or supreme court. As the decision relied on by the CIT was not from the jurisdictional High Court, the Tribunal found that the CIT's reliance on a non-jurisdictional high court decision was not valid.

Issue 2: Erroneous and Prejudicial Order
The crux of the dispute was whether the AO's assessment order reducing the profit eligible for deduction u/s. 80IB while computing book profit u/s. 115JB was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of section 115JB, which relate to the special provision for payment of tax by certain companies. It noted that if any income is not taxable due to a specific provision of the Act, it should not form part of book profit u/s. 115JB. The Tribunal also referred to judicial pronouncements and legal precedents to support the contention that when two views are possible and the AO has taken one plausible view, the order cannot be deemed erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the AO's order was rightly passed, and the CIT's invocation of powers under section 263 was unwarranted.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found no merit in the CIT's action under section 263 and allowed the appeal of the assessee. The judgment emphasized the importance of adherence to jurisdictional court decisions for invoking revisionary powers and highlighted the significance of considering multiple plausible views in assessing the correctness of an order under the IT Act.

---