e note that the Assessing Officer has considered the documents and submissions made by assessee and AO has also considered the assessment order for A.Y. 2011-12 passed in assessee'scaseand taking into account all the facts and circumstances the AO has adopted one of the courses permissible in law and even if it has resulted in loss to the revenue, the said decision of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industries Ltd. vs. CIT (supra).
Since the order of the Assessing Officer cannot be held to be erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, in the facts and circumstances narrated above, the usurpation of jurisdiction exercising revisional jurisdiction by the Principal CIT is “null’’ in the eyes of law and, therefore, we are inclined to quash the very assumption of jurisdiction to invoke revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 by the Principal CIT.
14. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Sec. 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961— Revision - The AO considered the documents and submissions made by assessee and AO also considered the assessment order for A.Y. 2011-12 passed in assessee's case and taking into account all the facts and circumstances the AO adopted one of the courses permissible in law and even if it has resulted in loss to the revenue, the said decision of the AO cannot be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Thus, assumption of jurisdiction to invoke revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 by the Principal CIT is set aside. - SUBHLABH STEELS (P) LTD. V/s PR. CIT - [2020] 23 ITCD Online 111 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
e note that the Assessing Officer has considered the documents and submissions made by assessee and AO has also considered the assessment order for A.Y. 2011-12 passed in assessee'scaseand taking into account all the facts and circumstances the AO has adopted one of the courses permissible in law and even if it has resulted in loss to the revenue, the said decision of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industries Ltd. vs. CIT (supra).
Since the order of the Assessing Officer cannot be held to be erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, in the facts and circumstances narrated above, the usurpation of jurisdiction exercising revisional jurisdiction by the Principal CIT is “null’’ in the eyes of law and, therefore, we are inclined to quash the very assumption of jurisdiction to invoke revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 by the Principal CIT.
14. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Sec. 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961— Revision - The AO considered the documents and submissions made by assessee and AO also considered the assessment order for A.Y. 2011-12 passed in assessee's case and taking into account all the facts and circumstances the AO adopted one of the courses permissible in law and even if it has resulted in loss to the revenue, the said decision of the AO cannot be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Thus, assumption of jurisdiction to invoke revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 by the Principal CIT is set aside. - SUBHLABH STEELS (P) LTD. V/s PR. CIT - [2020] 23 ITCD Online 111 (ITAT-KOLKATA)