2023 (1) TMI 316 - AT - Income Tax
Revision u/s 263 - subsidy received - Reduction of amount from cost of asset as per provisions of explanation 10 to sub section of section 43 - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the ld. AR had demonstrated before us the issue sought to be revised by the ld. PCIT in exercise the power vested with him u/s 263, was examined by the AO and took a plausible view during the course of assessment proceedings. No doubt the assessment order is silent on this point. But, generally, the issues which are acceptable to the AO do not find mention in the assessment order and it cannot be said that the AO had not applied his mind as observed in the case of Hari Iron Trading Co. [2003 (5) TMI 48 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] and Eicher Ltd [2007 (5) TMI 107 - HIGH COURT , DELHI] - Therefore, it cannot be said that the AO had failed to make an enquiry, no further enquiry is necessary and all the facts were before the AO. Consequently, we are of the considered opinion that the proposition that the assessment order is erroneous for want of an enquiry or proper enquiry would have no application to the facts of the present appeal.
PCIT cannot invoke the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act in respect of this issue. Accordingly, we set-aside the order of revision u/s 263 on this point.