9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 1073X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the CIT has erred in making an order u/s 263 referring it to the Assessing Officer in Arbitrary manner. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the order of CIT (Exemptions) is erroneous, arbitrary and bad in law and on facts. The order is an abuse to competence to exercise the revision powers.. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the CIT (Exemptions) is not justified in referring the case for fresh assessment on a plea that unsecured loan was raised during the year had not been shown in the receipt side. The loans are borrowings and were properly shown in Balance Sheet of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , assessee had disclosed total receipt of Rs 99.46 lacs and expenditure of Rs 92.83 lacs including depreciation of Rs 5.27 lacs. The assessee has shown excess of income over expenditure of Rs 6.63 lacs in the return of income. Since income was claimed exempt u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act, it was contended that there was no need to file audit report in Form 10B. This was the only reason for the case of the assessee to be selected for scrutiny. The explanation given by the assessee was accepted by the ld. AO and assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 7.12.2019 accepting the returned income. This assessment was sought to be revised by the ld. PCIT u/s 263 of the Act on the following grounds:- a) Unsecured loans received in the su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue of claiming depreciation on assets as an application of income, we find that though the ld. PCIT is right in stating that depreciation would not be eligible as an application of income after the amendment in 2015 in the Act, it would not have any implication in the assessment as income of the assessee would be exempt u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act. Hence the order of the ld. AO cannot be termed as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue though it may be erroneous to this extent. Unless the two conditions are satisfied cumulatively, the ld. PCIT would be justified in invoking revision jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. Hence initiation of revision jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act on the issue of depreciation is also quashed. 6. We fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
