AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 763
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....raised the following grounds of appeal: "1. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case, the Id. PCIT grossly erred in not appreciating that in order to invoke section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") two conditions must be fulfilled viz. the impugned assessment order must be erroneous and that error must be prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In the Appellant's case, Id. AO has passed the assessment order after analy/ing all primary details and therefore there was no error in the impugned assessment order so as to justify action u/s 263 of the Act. In the case of Appellant, the very assumption of power u/s 263 of the Act is unjustified and bad in law and therefore, order u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al to the interest of revenue 5. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case, the Id. PCIT erred in not appreciating the fact that the goodwill under consideration represent actual consideration paid over the value of assets taken over from amalgamating company and is an intangible asset which comes within the definition provided u/s. 32 r.w.s.43(l) of the Act. 6. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case the Ld. PCIT has neglected that this being the second year of amalgamation and that in the maiden year the Id. Assessing Officer has not found any error to the books of account and thus it was the fishing inquiry based on the SFT details reported on the non-existing co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ld. PC1T choose to invoke 263 proceeding was duplication and establishes that entire proceeding is being carried out mechanically and directing to set-aside the concluded proceeding is void and deserves to be deleted. 10. In law and in facts and circumstances of the case of Appellant, the Id. PCIT based on the impugned SFT information has made a futile attempt to reopen the proceeding with an only reason for making disallowance of goodwill which stands accepted twice by the Faceless Assessing Officer of NFAC and was accepted by the AO. Once the books of account in the year of amalgamation is accepted without any adverse view then in every subsequent year the Department cannot seek to assess whether the financial transaction reporte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... following the amalgamation and had claimed depreciation of Rs.57.11 crores in AY 2018-19 at 5%, by incorrectly treating the goodwill as a depreciable building asset in its return. However, in the immediately previous assessment year (AY 2017-18), the same depreciation claim was disallowed by the AO. The Principal CIT pointed out that there was no new basis or change in facts that could justify allowing the depreciation claim in the subsequent year, and the AO had failed to disallow it again, leading to an underassessment of income. The assessee, in response to the show cause notice under section 263 of the Act, submitted that the issue of Rs.20.92 crore had already been examined in the reassessment proceeding under section 148 of the Act a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9 both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 4. The assessee is in appeal before us against the order passed by Principal CIT setting aside the assessment order as being both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Before us, the primary argument of the Counsel for the assessee was that in succeeding assessment year's the claim of depreciation had not been disputed by the Department. Accordingly, in view of the principles of consistency, Principal CIT was precluded from initiating proceedings u/s 263 of the Act. In response, the Ld. DR placed reliance on the observations made by the Principal CIT in the 263 order. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. The argum....