TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1759
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mmissioner of Income Tax, erred on facts and in law in passing order u/s 263 of the Act, directing the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh assessment order to disallow the impugned deduction claimed by the appellant u/s 80IA(4) of Rs 8,29,50,836/- calling reassessment order passed on 31.03.2023 u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 as order sought to be revised', whereas the impugned deduction u/s 80IA(4) was already examined and allowed in the previous assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 17.05.2021 after complete scrutiny under CASS, with reference to which, the limitation for revision u/s 263 already expired on 31.03.2024. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case and in law, the revision u/s 263 of the Act for disallowing the deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act claimed by the appellant, if any, would have been made for the original assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 17.05.2021 that became time barred on 31.03.2024 for any possible action u/s 263 and therefore the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, unlawfully, resorted to using his powers by initiating revision proceedings for the reassessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thout any new material on record or without first demonstrating as to how such opinion of Ld. Assessing Officer is irrational or unsustainable in law, such an instance does not empower the Ld. PCIT u/s 263 to supersede his opinion in lieu of the lawful opinion formed by the Ld. Assessing Officer on the basis of all relevant enquiries conducted by the Assessing Officer, in view of law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) and followed by Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in many cases. 7. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend, modify and/or delete all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal. view of law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) and followed by Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in many cases." 2. The assessee is a company and filed the return of income for A.Y. 2018-19 on 27.10.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 1,00,91,730/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the order u/s 143(3) was passed on 17.05.2021 accepting the income returned by the assessee. Subsequentl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bro Ltd., which was not verified by the A.O. leading to order being erroneous and the assessee had indicated profit in respect of such bogus transactions also and in respect of the entire profit, the assessee had claimed deduction u/s 80IA(4) to the extent of 100% of the profits. The above has resulted in error leading to prejudice to the interest of revenue and both these conditions have been cumulatively satisfied in the instant case and therefore the conditions precedent for invoking the powers vested u/s 263 of the Act are fulfilled. 9.4 The bogus transactions, receipts from such transactions and the profit element on such contract receipts from L&T directly affects the genuineness of the corresponding purchase costs and claim of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act which remained unverified during the course of reassessment proceedings Hence, element of loss of revenue is present in reassessment order passed by the A.O. exhibiting non-application of mind to relevant material available on records including the information received in respect of transactions with L&T 10.1 Section 263 requires fulfillment of twin conditions namely error in an order and the consequen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r reopening was with respect to alleged bogus transaction with L&T which was concluded by AO without making any addition based on the details submitted by the assessee. The Ld.AR also submitted that when no addition has been made for the reasons for which the assessment was reopened then AO during the re-assessment proceedings would not have made any other addition even assuming that the assessee was not entitled to claim deduction u/s 80IA for year under consideration. Accordingly, Ld.AR argued that order u/s. 263 passed by the PCIT is without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. 4. The Ld. DR on the other hand, submitted that from the perusal of records the PCIT has found a factual error in the claim of deduction u/s 80IA by the assessee, since, the year under consideration is 11th year and the assessee is not eligible to claim the deduction beyond 10 years. The Ld.DR further submitted that when the assessment is reopened as per the provision of section 147 the assessing officer comes across any other issue which has escaped assessment he is at liberty to assess the said income also. Accordingly, Ld. DR argued that the assessing officer during the re-assessment proceeding sh....