Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2023 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 1335 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - lack of verification and application of mind by AO - Aas per CIT AO has allowed the deduction claimed u/s 80IA of the Act despite the fact that the assessee did not furnish all the supporting documents required as laid down in Rule 18BBB of the income Tax Rules for claiming deduction - Whether the assessee has submitted unit-wise Balance Sheets or not? - HELD THAT:- In response to notice under section 142(1) of the Act, the assessee has submitted unit-wise reply and detailed explanation before the Assessing Officer and the assessee also submitted further reply before the Assessing Officer. We note that Assessing Officer has issued further notice under section 142(1) of the Act, wherein the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to submit the details and documents of windmill unit-wise. In response to notice issued by the Assessing Officer, the assessee submitted its detailed reply along with documents and evidences. Therefore, we note that detailed reply and explanation were submitted before the Assessing Officer. We note that Assessing Officer could not download the unit-wise balance sheets due to technical error, therefore ld. Counsel submitted that there is no mistake on the part of the assessee in submitting the unit-wise balance sheets. From the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCT vs. M/s. Shreeji Prints Pvt. Ltd. [2020 (2) TMI 1021 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] it is vivid that the revisional powers cannot be exercised for directing a fuller inquiry to merely find out if the earlier view taken is erroneous particularly when a view was already taken after inquiry. A mere observation that no proper details have been obtained, cannot be sufficient to come to a conclusion that the AO did not make proper and adequate inquiries which he ought to have made in the given facts and circumstances of this case. None of the reasons set out by the PCIT for invoking the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act are sustainable. The impugned order of the PCIT has to be quashed for the reason that order of the AO sought to be revised in the impugned order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue for the reason of any lack of inquiry that the Assessing Officer ought to have made in the given facts and circumstances of the case. We accordingly quash the order u/s. 263 of the Act, and allow the appeal of the assessee.
|