ITAT upholds appeal, AO's orders valid. Pr. CIT lacks jurisdiction, revision order quashed.

The ITAT allowed the appeal, holding that the AO's orders were not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue's interest. The Ld. Pr. CIT lacked jurisdiction to interfere with the AO's decisions, leading to the quashing of the revision order.

---

---

Issues:
1. Delay in filing the appeal.
2. Revision order u/s. 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for AY 2012-13.
3. Claim of deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act.
4. Depreciation of hoarding structure @ 100%.

Issue 1: Delay in filing the appeal
The appeal was delayed by 57 days due to the misplacement of the impugned order by the assessee's Authorized Representative (AR). The delay was condoned by the ITAT as it was not the fault of the assessee, but an omission on the part of the AR. The appeal was admitted for adjudication.

Issue 2: Revision order u/s. 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for AY 2012-13
The Ld. Pr. CIT set aside the AO's order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act as erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interest. The AO had granted deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act to the assessee engaged in outdoor advertising. However, the Ld. Pr. CIT disagreed, stating that the activities did not qualify for the deduction. The ITAT held that the AO's decision was plausible, considering the previous decisions and submissions made by the assessee. The ITAT concluded that the revisional jurisdiction was wrongly exercised by the Ld. Pr. CIT.

Issue 3: Claim of deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act
The Ld. Pr. CIT challenged the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s. 80IA, arguing that the activities did not qualify for the deduction. The ITAT found that the AO's decision was supported by previous tribunal decisions and upheld that the AO's view was reasonable, hence rejecting the Ld. Pr. CIT's interference.

Issue 4: Depreciation of hoarding structure @ 100%
The Ld. Pr. CIT observed that the hoarding structure was used for less than 180 days, hence entitled to 7.5% depreciation instead of 100%. The ITAT noted that the AO's decision aligns with previous tribunal rulings, allowing 100% depreciation for temporary structures like hoardings. Therefore, the ITAT held that the Ld. Pr. CIT erred in considering the AO's action as erroneous, leading to the quashing of the revision order.

In conclusion, the ITAT allowed the appeal of the assessee, holding that the AO's orders were not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue's interest. The Ld. Pr. CIT lacked jurisdiction to interfere with the AO's decisions, leading to the quashing of the revision order.

---

---