TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 953
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r u/s 263 by invoking of Section 263 of the Act, although the assessment order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the I. T. Act, 1961 was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 2. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the reassessment order for A.Y. 2015-16 which is sought to be revised by the Ld. PCIT u/s 263 had neither considered the issue of eligibility for deduction u/s 80IE of the I.T. Act in the reassessment proceedings nor the reopening of the assessment made on that ground. Therefore, the issue does not arise out of the order passed u/s 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. For that on the facts of the case and law, the issue of notice u/s 263 of the Act on the ground that the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sment was framed vide order dated 15.03.2022. Subsequently to that the ld PCIT observed from the assessment records that the assessee was wrongly allowed the deduction u/s.80IE of the Act of Rs. 25,24,40,906/-. According to the ld. Pr.CIT the deduction u/s.80IE of the Act was available only in respect of the profits from business and not in respect of other incomes. According to the Pr.CIT Rs. 3,75,99,739/- represented the income from other sources and therefore, allowance of deduction u/s.80IE of the Act to the tune of Rs. 3,75,99,739/- from income from other sources was wrong and thus resulted in an under-assessment of income of Rs. 3,75,99,739/- with consequential undercharge of tax of Rs. 1,27,80,151/-. The ld. Pr.CIT also noticed that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not find any place in the reasons recorded by the AO nor came to the notice of the AO during re-assessment proceedings. The ld AR argued that considering the conclusion drawn by the ld. Pr.CIT that the assessment framed u/s.147/143(3) of the Act was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue was patently wrong and against the law. The ld. Pr.CIT could have revised the original assessment framed u/s.143(3)/147 of the Act dated 15.10.2018, however, the time limit for issuing notice u/s.263 of the Act was already expired as contemplated by the provisions of sub-section 2 of Section 263 of the Act. Thus, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the order passed by the ld. Pr.CIT is invalid and therefereo may be quashed. 5. Ld....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....interest was allowed to the tune of Rs. 2,30,64,516/-. We find that the time period provided under sub-section 2 to Section 263 of the Act is two years from the end of financial year in which order sought to revised is passed and since the issues raised by the ld. Pr.CIT on which the revisonary order u/s.263 of the Act was passed were not the subject matter of reopening of the assessment which culminated u/s.143(3)/147 of the Act vide order dated 15.03.2022 nor such issues ever came to the notice of the AO during the reassessment proceedings. Therefore, the Pr.CIT has wrongly revised the order passed u/s.143(3)/147 of the Act dated 15.03.2022 as the said order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The ld. Pr.CIT c....