2019 (10) TMI 518

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the order of assessment passed by A.O. was erroneous in so far as it was prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 2. The only effective ground in this appeal is against revising the assessment order by invoking provisions of section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as 'the Act'). The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the assessee firm is engaged in the business of jewellery, ornaments, precious stones, etc. The assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was framed vide order dated 3.3.2016. Subsequently, Ld. Pr. CIT on going through the case records noticed that the assessee had commissioned and installed solar power generation system on 26.3.2013. The cost of fresh project including land was Rs. 9,77,72,500/- ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ailed to examine this aspect and mechanically allowed the claim of depreciation. 5. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the materials on record. The Ld. Pr. CIT has decided the issue as under: 6. The contention of the assessee is that the A.O. has adopted one of the plausible view. It is stated that the solar generators were purchased during the financial year 2012-13 and also installed during the financial year 2012- 13. It is also stated that these generators were put to use for business in the financial year 2012-13 itself. It is further stated that the assessee has made payment of the sale consideration within the financial year 2012-13 except a sum of Rs. 59,48,030/- which was paid on 31.3.2013. The assessee has ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....orrect each and every type of mistake or error committed by the Assessing Officer. The order of the Assessing Officer cannot be termed prejudicial simply because the Assessing Officer adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue or where two views are possible and the Assessing Officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner did not agree. It is only when an order is erroneous that the section will be attracted and an incorrect assumption of fact or an incorrect application of law will satisfy the requirement of the order being erroneous. Where two views are possible and the Assessing Officer has taken one view and the Commissioner does not agree with the view taken b....