TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (9) TMI 511
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1(i) That on facts and circumstances of the case Pr. CIT was not justified in holding assessment order passed u/s 143(3) as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. (ii) That statutory claim u/s 801 A(4) was allowed in the original assessment after consideration of facts and legal provisions and as such there is no case for assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961. (iii) That Pr. CIT has admitted that there is no charge of lack of enquiry or application of mind on the part of AO while accepting the claim in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of I.T. Act, 1961 and as such order u/s 263 is merely on the basis of change of opinion and not sustainable on facts and under the law. (iv)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot justified on facts and same is bad in law. 3. The assessee is a State Corporation. During the year under consideration, the Corporation is acting as a Developing and Collecting agency for various schemes i.e. Low Cost Housing Scheme, re locations scheme, Narela Scheme and CETP Scheme on behalf of the Government of NCT Delhi and also providing infrastructure Services under Delhi State Industrial Operation and Maintenance Act, 2010. The assessee filed original e-return on 30/09/2011 declaring income of Rs. 22,77,90,022/-. Later on, the assessee filed revised ereturn on 21/06/2012 declaring income of Rs. 20,78,45,459/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS norms and notice u/s 143(2) was issued and duly served upon the assessee.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rent, sale of flats and Industrial Sheds and Housing Project for EWS and directed the Assessing Officer to withdraw the same. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of the Principal CIT u/s 263, the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that in the original assessment, the Assessing Officer has raised specific queries regarding the claim u/s 80IA (4) which can be seen from questionnaire No. 14 issued during the assessment proceedings. The Ld. AR pointed out the audit objections and also pointed out the letter regarding the audit objection which was dropped later on 2/2/2016 in relation to 80IA(4) deduction claimed. The Ld. AR submitted that the Principal CIT has only formed second opinion which is not permissible u/s 263 o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n various decisions that incorrect assumption of fact and law makes the order erroneous as well as prejudicial to interest of Revenue. The Ld. DR submitted that the present case is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Deniel Merchants Private Limited & Anr. Vs. Income Tax Officer (Appeal No. 2396/2017 order dated 29.11.2017). The Ld. DR also relied upon following decision of the various Hon'ble High Courts and Tribunal: (a) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) (b) Rajmandir Estates (P) Ltd. vs. PCIT (2016) 386 ITR 162 (Cal.) (c) Rajmandir Estates (P.) Ltd. vs. PCIT (2017) 245 Taxman 127 (SC) (d) Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products & Camphor Works vs. CIT (1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....een seen by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax in the present case and aptly applies in the present case. It is also held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the provisions cannot be invoked to correct each and every type of mistake or error committed by the Assessing Officer, it is only when an order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue that the section will be attracted. Thus, the Principal CIT has looked into the aspect of the Assessment Order in the present case to the extent of erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and thus, Section 263 of the Act is attracted in the present case. Section 263 of the Act is not invoked simply for correcting mistake or error committed by the Assessing Officer in the....