L & T INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. PCIT, CIR-6, MUMBAI

Further it was submitted that the order of assessment passed by the AO is not prejudicial to the interest of the revenue because the assessee had filed correct computation while filing return of income. During the course of revisionary proceedings u/s 263, the assessee has always contended that the computation as per filed ITR - 6 should be taken into account wherein the book loss is correctly computed. Thus there is no loss of revenue and it cannot be said that the order is prejudicial to the revenue.

On the contrary Ld. DR relied upon the orders passed by the Ld. PCIT.

After having gone through the facts of the present case and the material placed on record and after hearing both the parties at length, we found from the records that as for as the question of erroneous computation of book loss u/s 115JB of the Act is concern, it is an undisputed fact that during previous year, the assessee reported a book loss of Rs. 37,84,41,697/- u/s 115JB in the original return of income. However, in the revised return of income, an erroneous amount of Rs. 2,69,73,94,318/- was determined due to the profit after tax being inadvertently recorded as Nil due to a technical glitch in the income tax e-filing utility.

Consequently, the AO while passing the order u/s 143(3) of the Act had assessed book loss at Rs. 42,90,88,151/-. However, Ld. PCIT while appreciating the facts found that the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings had furnished a Computation of Income as per which the Book profit was computed at Rs. (-) 42,90,88,151/-, reducing "Provision for NPA, ECL and restructuring" of Rs. 825,67,60,450/-, whereas the Computation filed along with ITR reveals that an amount of Rs. 556,84,45,139/-, has been reduced on a/c of "Provision for NPA and ECL Provision" and arriving at a Book Profit of Rs. (-) 37,84,41,697/-. However, it is seen that the AO without verifying the calculation, had simply accepted the computation of income filed during the assessment proceedings and assessed the book loss at Rs. 42,90,88,151/- Therefore, from the above facts it is clear that the order dated 23.09.2021 is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue and is covered by clause (a) to Expln. 2 of Sec. 263.

We found that Ld. PCIT while invoking the revisional power u/s 263 of the Act has recorded well reasoned judicial finding considering the fact of the case which in our view needs no interference.

As far as the second issue as raised in this appeal regarding denial of the claim of bad debts and advances return off u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act are concern. In this regard it has been outrightly admitted and submitted by the Ld. AR that this ground is no longer pressed as relief has already been granted vide order passed by the AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s 263 of the Act dated 24.03.2024. No new material or documents have been placed on record to rebut or controvert the findings recorded by the PCIT. Therefore considering the legal as well as factual position we dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee.