TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 542
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is time barred, however, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Miscellaneous Application No. 665 of 2021 in SMW(C ) No. 3 of 2020, the period of filing appeal during the COVID-19 pandemic is to be excluded for the purpose of counting the limitation period. In view of this, the appeal is treated as filed within the limitation period. 3. The only issue raised in the various grounds of appeal by the assessee is against the exercise of revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act by ld PCIT setting aside the assessment order framed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 09.05.2017. 4. The facts in brief are that the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was framed vide order dated 09.05.2017 by making various additions assessing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the Ld. PCIT which accordingly to him was allegedly not examined during the course of assessment proceedings is completely wrong and against the facts on record. The Ld. A.R. referred to the assessment order framed by the AO and submitted that the AO has specifically called upon the assessee to explain the discrepancies as contained in the documents marked as SKAPL-1 and SKAPL-2 which were found during the course of survey on 06.01.2015. The ld AR submitted that during the course of scrutiny proceedings the assessee replied the query raised by the AO. The Ld. A.R. argued that having accepted the reply of the assessee and various arguments as furnished before the AO by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO acce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../-. The Ld. D.R. relied heavily on the order of Ld. PCIT while admitting that issue has been examined by the AO but wrong view has been taken after considering the submissions of the assessee which is nothing but wrong appreciation of facts by the AO and thus justifies the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act to revise the assessment. The ld DR therefore prayed that the appeal of the assessee may kindly be dismissed. 7. We have heard rival contentions and perused the facts on record carefully including the revisionary order passed u/s 263 of the Act and various decisions cited before us. We note that during the assessment proceedings, notice 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire was issued calling for various details and explanation from t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as discussed above. We note that the assessee has produced the audited books of accounts before the AO and duly explained as to how the issues raised by the ld PCIT were not warranted in view of the explanation given by the assessee. In our considered view, since the AO has examined all the issues raised by the PCIT in the revisionary order during assessment proceedings and only thereafter framed the assessments u/s 143(3) of the Act, the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act is not maintainable as the AO has taken a possible view or taken one of the two possible views to which the PCIT does not agree or is of the opinion that the AO has taken one view whereas according to PCIT the second view should have been taken by the AO. It is settled law ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in conditions namely i) the order of the AO sought to be revised is erroneous and ii) it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue and if one of them is absent, i.e. if the order of the AO is erroneous but is not prejudicial to the revenue or vice versa, recourse cannot be had to Section 263 of the Act. In the present case before us also the PCIT has failed to point out as to how the order passed by the AO is erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The Ld. PCIT simply discussed various issues which according to him have not been verified/examined by the AO during the assessment proceedings and has not pointed out as to how the assessments are erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and t....