TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 346
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the revision order u/s 263 by holding that the asst. order passed u/s 143(3) in the case of the assessee company for A.Y.2015 - 16 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and thereby directing the A.O. to verify the issue regarding exemption u/s 10(26AAB) de novo. 2. The learned PCIT erred in holding that the A.O. has not applied the proper provisions of law while verifying the issue of allowing exemption u/s 10(26AAB) to the assessee company and thereby holding that the asst. order u/s 143(3) was erroneous in nature so as to warrant revision of the same u/s 263 of the Act without appreciating that the revision u/s 263 was not justified on facts and in law. 3. The learned PCIT failed to appreciate that in the cour....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ny of the above grounds of appeal." 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are as under :- The appellant is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013. It was formed with the object of carrying on business of Agriculture Produce Market Committee (APMC)/ Board. The return of income for the assessment year 2015-16 was filed on 30.09.2015 disclosing Rs.Nil income after claiming exemption of income u/s 10(26AAB) of the Act. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Nashik ('the Assessing Officer') vide order dated 30.06.2017 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act accepting the returned income. 4. Subsequently, on examination of the assessment record, ld. Pr.CIT had com....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eld that the assessment order is "erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue" and setaside the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in accordance with law :- (i) The appellant company is an individual private limited company which is not constituted under any prevailing of law by Maharashtra Government. (ii) The appellant company cannot regulate the market of agricultural produce. (iii) The assessment was completed without considering the provisions of section 10(26AAB) of the Act. (iv) The Assessing Officer had failed to examine the issue whether the assessee is entitled for exemption u/s 10(26AAB) or not?. 5. Being aggrieved by the above order of the ld. Pr.CIT, the appellant is before ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e information filed before the Assessing Officer is also filed before us in the paper book pages no.12 to 23. The ld. AR also taken us through the recommendation of the Committee of State Ministers, In-charge of Agriculture Marketing to Promote Reforms placed at page no.78 to 119 of the Paper Book wherein, it is stated that the promotion of APMC had to be modified by providing for setting-up of alternate marketing systems in private/cooperative sectors, which can operate in addition and parallel to the existing markets. Thus, it is contended that it cannot be said that the Assessing Officer had passed the assessment order allowing the claim for exemption u/s 10(26AAB) without due enquiry. Further, it is contended that there is no material o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot be termed as an "erroneous". 9. Now, we may examine the facts of the present case. We find that the Assessing Officer carried out necessary enquiry and verification while allowing the claim of exemption u/s 10(26AAB) of the Act. On going through the assessment proceedings, it would be evident that the case was selected for scrutiny assessment under limited scrutiny for the very purpose of verifying the claim u/s 10(26AAB) of the Act. The Assessing Officer had issued notice u/s 142(1) dated 07.06.2017 calling for the details complete ledger account of exemptions claimed u/s 10(26AAB) along with supporting bills/vouchers vide query no.7 of the questionnaire. This query was replied by the assessee by filing the detailed explanation as to h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e vide para 3 of the assessment order. This facts would clearly show that the Assessing Officer had examined the claim/considered the information/explanation filed during the course of assessment proceedings took a view that claim of the assessee u/s 10(26AAB) of the Act is allowable. Nor can it be said that the Assessing Officer did not consider the provisions of section 10(26AAB) of the Act. In our considered opinion, the order cannot be termed as 'erroneous' for want of enquiry on the issue which is sought to be revised by the ld. Pr.CIT. The ratio of decision of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nirav Modi, 390 ITR 292 (Bom.); MOIL Ltd. vs. CIT, 396 ITR 244 (Bom.); Idea Cellular Ltd. vs. DCIT, 301 ITR 403 (Bom.) is square....