TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1385
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unsel of the assessee explained the reasons for delay in filing the appeal. On the other hand, the Ld. D.R strongly objected the condoning of the delay. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the delay is for bonafide and genuine reasons and hence, we condone the delay and adjudicate the appeal in the following paras. 3. The only issue raised in the various grounds of appeal is against the order of ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (in short PCIT), invoking the revisionary jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act, thereby cancelling the assessment framed by the ld. AO u/s. 143(3) of the Act, on the ground of being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 4. The facts ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... submitted before us that the assessee has been carrying on the business of building, maintaining and operating(BOT) Berth No. 4A at Haldia Dock, Kolkata Port Trust. The Haldia Dock Complex Kolkata(Port Trust) invited a tender with condition of BOT basis for a period of 30 years which was awarded to the assessee. Accordingly, a deed of license dated 14.05.2022, was executed according to which the assessee was provided with the job of building the facilities at Berth No. 4A of Haldia Dock Complex, which is utilized to handle the imported coal for Steel Authority of India. The assessee filed the return of income on 06.10.2016, declaring total income of Rs.73,50,108/- for the instant year after claiming deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act of Rs.10,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....)[10-02- 2000]. 7. The ld. AR further submitted that once the assessee has replied/ filed evidences in response to notice issued u/s. 142(1) of the Act, then it is presumed that the ld. AO has examined the issue and done proper enquiry. In defense of his argument the ld. AR relied on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-1 vs. V-Con Integrated Solutions (P.) Ltd. [2025] 173 taxmann.com 774 (SC)/[2025] 304 Taxman 598 (SC)/[2025] 476 ITR 526 (SC)[04-04-2025]dated 04.04.2025. The ld. AR therefore, prayed that the order passed u/s. 263 of the Act may kindly be quashed by allowing the appeal of the assessee. 8. The ld. DR on the other hand relied heavily on the orders of the ld. PCIT by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inion, the order passed by the ld. AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. We note that there is no discrepancy in the gross receipt as the ld. AO has examined the re-conciliation of gross receipt during the course of assessment proceedings. Moreover, if any difference is there that is neutal and has no effect on the income of the assessee as the same would be neutralized by the increase in amounts of deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act. Therefore, there is no detriment caused to the Revenue. Hence, the order passed by the ld. AO u/s. 143(3) of the Act is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The case of the assessee is also covered by the decision of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. Com....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oes not have a control over the pen of the ld. AO and once the ld. AO carries out the investigation but does not impact any addition it can be taken that he accepts the pleas and stands of the assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it would be wrong to say that Revenue is remedyless. Power u/s. 263 of the Act can be exercised by the Commissioner of Income Tax, but by going into the merits and making addition and not by way of reording that there is a failure to investigate. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there is distinction between failure to investigate and a wrong decision/ conclusion. A wrong decision/ conclusion can be corrected by the Commissioner of Income Tax with a decision on merit and by making of addition of ....