Case Law Details
Shri Keshoraipatan Sahkari Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs PCIT (ITAT Jaipur)
We find that the assessment was taken up for scrutiny under CASS to examine the deduction claimed chapter VIA for limited purpose and on this issue, there is finding of the ld. AO in the assessment order. Yet, learned PCIT has subjected the assessment order to revision proceedings on the short ground that the Assessing Officer passed the assessment order is erroneous in so far as it prejudicial to the interest of revenue for the purpose of section 263 of the Act and liable to revision under the explanation (2) clause (b) and clause (a) of section 263 of the Act as the ld. AO allowed the deduction u/s. 80(P)(2)(d) of the Act which is not allowable to the assessee considering the facts placed on record. Thus, the main question centers on whether action of the assessing officer in allowing the claim of the assessee us/s. 80(P)(2)(d) is found faulted with, whether the assessee ought to have produced the appropriate evidence and whether non-recording of the reasons for accepting explanation will render the order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In fact, there is a specific finding and reference of the deduction claimed by the assessee founded place in the assessment order. Thus, we are of the considered view that he ld. AO has taken a plausible view which is based on decision relied upon by the ld. AR of the assessee is one of the plausible views and we see that there is no lack of enquiry on the part of Ld. AO and we find that he has applied his mind and allowed the claim to the assessee.
Thus, ld.AO has examined that issue as it is evident form the finding recorded in the assessment order. As the case was for this limited purpose the same has been examined and verified by the ld. AO as it emerges from the findings of the AO. The ld. Pr. CIT evidently did not place on record any apparent error on the part of the AO to substantiate that order passed by the ld. AO is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. She only mentioned that the AO allowed deduction u/s. 80(P)(2)(d) on the interest income received from co-operative bank and thus AO erred in allowing the deduction u/s. 80(P)(2)(d) on such interest income. She has not pin pointed any of the enquiry which is required to be made is not made by the ld. AO the fact from where the ld. PCIT drawing interference is already on record and based on that information the ld. AO drawn a plausible view on the matter. There is no defect found from the enquiry that has been conducted by the ld. AO. He collected the information based on upon which he has allowed the claim to assessee and has verified the point raised in the limited scrutiny.
The decision and contentions raised by ld. DR contradictory so as to allowability of deduction and thus based on the decision of vegetable products the view which is favourable to the assessee shall be taken and the ld. AO has based on that set of facts taken a plausible view and completed the assessment. The ld. PCIT did not find any specific error or default of AO and thus we see no reasons in interfering the view that has already been taken. Since, in this case ld. AO has clearly conducted the enquiry and revenue did not pin point the error on the part of the assessing officer the order passed after due application of mind cannot be subjected to proceeding u/s. 263 of the Act.
Be that as it may, in our considered view, as the A.O while framing the assessment had taken a plausible view of the matter of while allowing the claim of the assessee, and revenue did not demonstrate the error remain on the part of the ld. AO. In fact, when the ld. AO has conducted the required enquiry and not violated any of the conditions mentioned for revision of order as required by Explanation 2 of Section 263 of the Act, the order passed by the Assessing Officer could not be deemed to be erroneous to be prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
