INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

--Revision under section 263--Erroneous and prejudicial orderLack of enquiry by AO--CIT found that assessee was liable for payment of MAT within the meaning of section 115JB, which had not been considered by assessing officer at the time of making assessment. Therefore, he was of the view that the assessment was prejudicial to the interest of revenue and accordingly, he directed the assessing officer for detailed examination vis-a-vis the order issued by the BIFR and pass the assessment order afresh in accordance with law. Assessee argued that it had specifically noted while computing the total income that clause (vii) of Explanation to section 115JB(2) are not at all applicable to the case of assessee. The assessing officer has agreed with this contention of the assessee on consideration of the auditor's report and the provisions contained in clause (vii) of Explanation to section 115JB(2) while passing the assessment order. In this view of the matter it could not be said that assessing officer had not at all considered the impact of the said provisions while making the assessment. Held: Since assessing officer had considered the impact of the provisions of section 115JB(2) while making the assessment, therefore, order of assessing officer was not at all erroneous which was one of the ingredients required for invoking jurisdiction by CIT under section 263. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.

Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 263

IN THE ITAT, CUTTACK BENCH

K. K. GUPTA, A.M. & K.S.S. PRASAD RAO, J.M.

Mangalam Timber Products Ltd. v. CIT