AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 1085
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessment Year [A.Y.] 2017-18. 2. The assessee 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 circu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....NAL GROUND NO. 7: 7.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. PCIT failed to appreciate 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 th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Act with the direction to pass afresh assessment order on above two issues. 5. Before us, Ld. AR has made detailed arguments 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the copy of ITR, Balance-sheet/capital account, copy of bank statement of the parties from who the share capital is received. 5. You are also required to provide the 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,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee is allowed and the Assessing Officer is directed to treat the expenditure in question as revenue expenditure. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed." 12. In view of the 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 o....