Assessment order upheld by Tribunal due to Assessing Officer's failure to rectify despite revised return.

The Tribunal found that the original assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial as the Assessing Officer had not rectified the order despite the revised return filed by the assessee. The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner of Income Tax's order and restored the Assessing Officer's assessment, allowing the appeal of the assessee.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax under section 263 of the I.T. Act was correct.
2. Consideration of the revised return of income filed by the assessee for claiming enhanced deduction u/s.80IA.
3. Validity of the assessment order passed under section 143(3) by the Assessing Officer.
4. Jurisdiction of the CIT under section 263 of the I.T. Act.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appeal was against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax passed under section 263 of the I.T. Act. The assessee contested that the order of the CIT was not correct as the order of the A.O. was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of Revenue.

Issue 2:
The scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) was completed, and the A.O. had considered the original return of income filed by the assessee but failed to consider the revised return filed later for claiming enhanced deduction u/s.80IA. The CIT considered this non-consideration as a mistake and set aside the assessment order for re-evaluation.

Issue 3:
The contention was raised that the order passed by the A.O. was not erroneous as admitted by the CIT, and the assessment could only become erroneous if rectified. The Tribunal observed that the A.O. had not rectified the order, and therefore, the original assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of revenue.

Issue 4:
The Tribunal held that the CIT wrongly considered the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial. The Tribunal found that the A.O. had not considered the revised return, but the order itself was not erroneous. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT as the twin conditions for invoking jurisdiction under section 263 were not met, and restored the order of the A.O. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the original assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial, as the A.O. had not rectified the order despite the revised return filed by the assessee. The Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and restored the A.O.'s assessment, allowing the appeal of the assessee.

---