TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 1113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - SUPREME COURT ] and it was held that the phrase prejudicial to the interests of the revenue has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the Assessing Officer and every loss of revenue as a consequence of the order of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. It was further held that where two views are possible and the Income Tax Officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, the order passed by the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. it is the claim of the assessee that the assessee has not claimed the benefit of the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for the Assessment Ye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... substantial questions of law. (i) Whether in law, when the AO had taken one of the possible views, was it correct for the Tribunal to hold that assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was correct? (ii) Whether, when the appellant though made adhoc provision towards expenses on account of technical/consultancy services for engineering services did not claim in the Profit Loss Account as deduction and claimed only the expenditure on which TDS was made which was allowed by the AO, the said order of the AO can be said to be erroneous for assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act? (iii) Whether in law, the Tribunal was correct in ignoring the decision of a co-ordinate Bench which was relied upon by the appellant t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ired to be disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The assessee filed detailed objections raising the issue of jurisdiction as well as on merits and contended that there was no error much less any error prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and assumption of the jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act was itself erroneous. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) however, vide order dated 19.03.2015 rejected the plea of the assessee and concluded the proceedings and remitted the matter to the assessing officer to decide the matter afresh and in accordance with law. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 20.01.2016 has affirmed the order passed by the Commissioner of Inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ord. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to take note of the relevant extract of Section 263 of the Act, which reads as under: 263. Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue (1) The Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by the Assessing Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, he, may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify, including an order enhancing or modifying the assessment, or cancelling the assessment and directing a fresh asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ads as under: 4.3 The only issue that arises for our consideration in the present appeal is whether the Id.CIT(LTU) was justified in assuming jurisdiction under the provisions of sec.263 of the Act. The only ground on which the Id.CIT(LTU) exercised the power of revision u/s 263 was that the claim of allowance of ₹ 2,36,07,661/- under the provisions of sec. 40(a)(ia) was not examined by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. 10. However, it is the claim of the assesee that the assessee has not claimed the benefit of the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for the Assessment Year in question ie., 2008-09 and the same was claimed in the previous Assessment Year ie., 2007-08. Therefore, in our opinion, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
