TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 2081
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax erred in passing the impugned order u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act) without providing an adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant as per the ground stated in the order or otherwise. 2. The Appellant submits that the order u/s. 263 of the Act made by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax is bad in law, erroneous, invalid, void, in excess of and / or in want of jurisdiction and otherwise illegal. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law. the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sequently, the Pr. Commissioner of Income Rax erred in passing order u/s. 263 as the order passed by the AO is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue as the AO's action of allowing an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- being claim of deduction u/s 80G in respect of Corporate Social Responsibility expense incurred is sustainable in law. 3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee, a company engaged in the business of manufacturing and export of dyestuffs and intermediates, filed its return of income for the relevant assessment year on 29.01.2021, declaring a total income of Rs.35,20,91,580/-. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ad failed to apply his mind to the issue, thereby rendering the assessment order erroneous, in so far as it was prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Accordingly, invoking the provisions of Section 263 of the Act, the Ld. PCIT set aside the assessment order dated 26.09.2022, with a direction to the Assessing Officer to frame a fresh assessment after making necessary verification and disallowing the deduction claimed under Section 80G in respect of the said CSR expenditure, after affording due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 4. The Ld. PCIT in para 6.9 of the impugned order has noted that the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in following two cases has decided the issue in favour of assessee but the Department had prefer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nded that the Assessing Officer had duly applied his mind to the issue and conducted inquiries before accepting the claim. It was, therefore, not a case of lack of inquiry or non-application of mind, which alone could justify the exercise of revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act. In further support, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Kolkata Tribunal in the case of JMS Mining (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT [2021] 130 taxmann.com 118 (Kolkata-Trib.). It was submitted that in the said case also, the assessee had claimed deduction under Section 80G in respect of donations forming part of CSR expenditure. The Tribunal, after examining the statutory framework, particularly the proviso to Sectio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....laced on record. The Ld. PCIT has exercised revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act and held that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous in so far as it was prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The basis of such finding was that the Assessing Officer had allegedly failed to conduct any inquiry before allowing the assessee's claim of deduction under Section 80G of the Act, in respect of the amount forming part of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) expenditure, which had otherwise been disallowed under Section 37(1) of the Act. Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee has drawn attention to the inquiries conducted by the Assessing Officer through the issuance of notice under Section 1....