TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 1085
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee has raised following grounds of appeal: "ON JURISDICTION OF PCIT IN REVISION BASED ON AUDIT OBJECTION 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, revision by the commissioner is liable to be quashed since the PCIT did not exercise his own discretion and judgement. As revision is based on the audit objection, fundamentally PCIT has no jurisdiction to pass the revision order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the revision initiated is prima facie bad and unsustainable since revision is based on audit objection and hence bad in law. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the revision cannot be sustained as the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppreciate and ought to have held that the expenditure inadvertently disallowed by the Appellant was allowable as deduction u/s. 35ABB of the Act. 7.2 The Appellant prays that the deduction u/s. 35ABB be held to be allowable. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed return declaring nil income on 30.10.2017 and the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act at assessed income of Rs. 14,371/- under normal provisions and tax was levied at total income of Rs. 18,88,457/- computed u/s 115JB of the Act. Subsequently, PCIT issued an order u/s 263 of the Act dated 26.02.2024 on the ground that the order of the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as an amount of Rs. 22,10,336/- claimed as fili....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pointing out that the order of the AO was not erroneous, on a debatable issue two views are possible and the AO has taken one of the views then action u/s 263 is not permissible. He has further pointed out that revision was based on audit objection only. 6. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, strongly relied on the order of the PCIT. He has also pointed out that vide CBDT circular dated 16.02.2023 the remedial action in respect of audit objection was very much permissible rather it was required to be taken as has rightly been done by the PCIT. He further pointed out that since the return has been revised to show an income of Rs. 31,24,660/- as against the original return of Rs. 14,370/-, and therefore, AO's order assessing the income at Rs. 14,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....details of any premium charged on the shares, if so, the copy of third party valuation report is required. Also explain the applicability of the provisions of section 56(vilb) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and if not, why?" 8. The assessee furnished its reply in respect of these queries vide letters dated 06.11.2019 and 13.11.2019. Thus, complete details relating to the issue of filing fee of Rs. 2,10,336/- were furnished and examined by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. 9. During the course of 263 proceedings before the PCIT also, the assessee, vide letter dated 08.02.2024, explained that the issue had been examined by the AO and therefore it cannot be said that the order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. 10....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... various other decisions on the issue including the above cited decision of the co-ordinate bench, it is held that the expenditure of filing fee of Rs. 22,07,836/- was allowed by the AO after requisite examination and , therefore, it cannot be said that the order of the AO was erroneous and/or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 13. The other ground on which the Ld. PCIT has treated the assessment as erroneous is that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee had submitted a revised computation showing income of Rs. 31,24,660/- (as against the original return of income at 14,370/-) which was not examined by the AO. Subsequently, the assessee had also filed a revised return on 13.03.2019 showing total income of Rs. 3....