AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 928
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he outset we note that there is a delay of 143 days in filing the appeal however the ld. Counsel for the assessee Mr. Ketan Kr. Ved pointed out that this delay was during COVID period and therefore covered by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 (SC). 3. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee pressed only ground nos. 1,2& 6 while ground nos. 3,4 & 5 were not pressed accordingly ground nos. 3,4 & 5 are dismissed as not pressed. 4. Issue raised in ground no. 1 is against the invalid exercise of jurisdiction by PCIT u/s 263 of the Act thereby consequent order framed u/s 263 of the Act dated 31.03.2021 was also invalid. 5. Facts in brief are that the asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ionary jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act was invalidly exercised by the AO to set aside the assessment which was invalidly framed in accordance with the provisions of Act after taking into account the reply and submissions of the assessee along with evidences filed and therefore the order passed by the AO was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. So far as the issue mentioned in para 2 (i) is concerned which relates to service tax written off amounting to Rs. 1,82,00,000/-, the Ld. A.R submitted that the said write off is allowable deduction and there can be no question of the findings of the AO being replaced by the view of the Ld. PCIT as view taken by the AO is a plausible view on the subject in the light of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his own view. The Ld. A.R submitted that it is not the case of the ld. PCIT that these issues were not examined by AO during the assessment proceedings. The Ld. A.R therefore submitted that exercise of jurisdiction by ld. PCIT is invalid and may be quashed. In defense of arguments, the Ld. A.R relied on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. in [1993]203 ITR 108 (Bom). The Ld. A.R also submitted that where the PCIT has exercised the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and stated that the order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue then the PCIT ought to have recorded a categorical finding and should record reasons as to how assessment order is erroneous whereas ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sue which relates to service tax written off by the assessee of Rs. 1,82,00,000/- and second issue pertains to the provisions for warranty of Rs. 9,14,90,000/-. According ld. PCIT, the service tax written off is not an allowable item and to that extent the order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as per Section 36(2) of the Act and similarly the provisions for warranty which were debited in the profit and loss account which were held to be unascertained liability by DRP and accordingly the order passed by the AO was erroneous and prejudicial as an item which is required to be added, while computing books profit u/s 115JB of the Act , has not been done by the AO. We note that during the assessment pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t be material available on the record called for by the Commissioner to satisfy him prima facie that the aforesaid two requisites are present. If not, he has no authority to initiate proceedings for revision......................... In our opinion, any other view in the matter will amount to giving unbridled and arbitrary power to the revising authority to initiate proceedings for revision in every case and start re-examination and fresh enquiries in matters which have already been concluded under the law." 9.1. Similarly where the ld. PCIT exercises revisionary jurisdiction and revises the assessment order passed by the AO then it is incumbent upon the PCIT to record a categorical finding as to how the assessment order passed b....