TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (1) TMI 316
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....above captioned appeals, we proceed to dispose of the same by this common order. 3. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the facts relevant to the appeal in ITA No.857/PUN/2019 for the assessment year 2013-14 are stated herein. ITA No.857/PUN/2019, A.Y. 2013-14 : 4. The appellant raised the following grounds of appeal :- "1. The Order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 28.03.2019 passed by the Principle Commissioner of Income Tax - 1 is bad in law. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Aurangabad has erred in passing an order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 28.03.2019 where the assessing officer has ta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../- u/s 14A of the Act. Subsequently, on verification of the assessment record, the ld. PCIT formed an opinion that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue for the following reasons :- (i) The appellant company received incentives/subsidy of Rs.4,80,18,000/- from the Government of Maharashtra under the Package Scheme Incentives- 2007 during the year under consideration for the purpose of setting up of the plant. (ii) The ld. PCIT was of the opinion that the said inventive amounts received should go to reduce the cost of actual cost for the purpose of allowability of depreciation under the provisions of Explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Therefore, the ld. PCIT set-aside the assessment order with the direction to the Assessing Officer to do de novo assessment after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard the assessee vide order dated 28.03.2019. 7. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 8. During the course of hearing of appeal, the ld. AR had not pressed the ground of appeal nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 and the same are dismissed as not pressed. 9. The only ground of appeal no.3 pressed by the ld. AR during the course of hearing of appeal challenges the direction of the ld. PCIT to Assessing Officer to examine the applicability of Explanation 10 to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (Bombay). Thus, it was contended that the order passed by the Assessing Officer cannot be termed as "erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue" and the ld. PCIT ought not to have exercised the power of revision under the provisions of section 263 of the Act. 10. On the other hand, ld. CIT-DR contends that there was no evidence to show that the Assessing Officer had examined the issue of applicability of Explanation 10 to section 43(1) to subsidy in question. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Assessing Officer took a plausible view. Failure of the Assessing Officer to examine the issue in proper perspective renders the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and, therefore, the ld. P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Officer had not applied his mind as observed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT, 263 ITR 437 (P&H) and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Eicher Ltd., 294 ITR 310 (Delhi). Therefore, it cannot be said that the Assessing Officer had failed to make an enquiry, no further enquiry is necessary and all the facts were before the Assessing Officer. Consequently, we are of the considered opinion that the proposition that the assessment order is erroneous for want of an enquiry or proper enquiry would have no application to the facts of the present appeal. Therefore, the ld. PCIT cannot invoke the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act in respect of this issue. Accordingly, we set-aside ....