MANOIR PETRO INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 1, MUMBAI

5 Manoir Petro India Limited C.O. No.95/Mum/2015 2.2. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Before adverting further, it is our bounded duty to examine section 263 of the Act, which is reproduced hereunder for ready reference and analysis:-

263. (1) The Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by the Assessing Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify, including an order enhancing or modifying the assessment, or cancelling the assessment and directing a fresh assessment. 46[Explanation 1.]—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that, for the purposes of this sub-section,— (a) an order passed on or before or after the 1st day of June, 1988 by the Assessing Officer shall include— (i) an order of assessment made by the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or the Income-tax Officer on the basis of the directions issued by the Joint Commissioner undersection 144A; (ii) an order made by the Joint Commissioner in exercise of the powers or in the performance of the functions of an Assessing Officer conferred on, or assigned to, him under the orders or directions issued by the Board or by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner authorised by the Board in this behalf under section 120; (b) record" shall include and shall be deemed always to have included all records relating to any proceeding under this Act 6 Manoir Petro India Limited C.O. No.95/Mum/2015 available at the time of examination by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner; (c) where any order referred to in this sub-section and passed by the Assessing Officer had been the subject matter of any appeal filed on or before or after the 1st day of June, 1988, the powers of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner under this sub-section shall extend and shall be deemed always to have extended to such matters as had not been considered and decided in such appeal. 47[Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this section, it is hereby declared that an order passed by the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner,— (a) the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made; (b) the order is passed allowing any relief without inquiring into the claim; (c) the order has not been made in accordance with any order, direction or instruction issued by the Board under section 119; or (d) the order has not been passed in accordance with any decision which is prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person.] (2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), an order in revision under this section may be passed at any time in the case of an order which has been passed in consequence of, or to give effect to, any finding or direction contained in an order of the Appellate Tribunal, National Tax Tribunal, the High Court or the Supreme Court. Explanation.—In computing the period of limitation for the purposes of sub-section (2), the time taken in giving an opportunity to the assessee to be reheard under the proviso to section 129 and any period during which any proceeding under 7 Manoir Petro India Limited & C.O. No.95/Mum/2015 this section is stayed by an order or injunction of any court shall be excluded.”

Commissioner served upon the assessee a show cause notice issued u/s 263 of the Act, to which the assessee filed written submissions, therefore, the contention of the ld. counsel for the assessee that proper opportunity was not provided is not substantiated. Before the Ld. Pr. Commissioner, the assessee submitted that the Ld. Assessing Officer duly examined the issue involved, raised appropriate queries, called for relevant 8 Manoir Petro India Limited C.O. No.95/Mum/2015 details and on examination of such details allowed relief to the assessee. Identical plea was raised before this Tribunal.

2.4. Now, we shall deal with the cases cited from both sides along with the ratio laid down therein and also some other cases which are available on the issue in hand, so that we can reach to a justifiable conclusion. In the case of MOIL Ltd. vs CIT ((supra)), relied upon by the Ld. counsel for the assessee, the particular decision was arrived at where the Assessing Officer was satisfied with the admissibility of the claim on the basis of material and details supplied by the assessee, therefore, the Ld. Assessing Officer was not expected to raise more queries. In the case of CIT vs Fine Jewellery India Ltd. ((supra)), the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings, sought details in respect of expenditure incurred for building brand and after examining details holding part alone was of capital nature. In that situation, the assessment

order was held to be neither erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Another decision relied upon was CIT vs Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (2018) 404 ITR 1(Supreme Court), wherein, the issue was with respect to benefit or 9 Manoir Petro India Limited C.O. No.95/Mum/2015 amenity or arising from business and no deduction was claimed in respect of interest paid on loan within the ambit of section 36(1)(iii) and 41(1) of the Act. In the case of Small Wonder Industries vs CIT (2017) 49 CCH 177 (Mum. Trib.)

order dated 24/02/2017, wherein, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and notice under section 142 along with questionnaire was issued to the assessee. The assessee filed the necessary details and after considering the factual matrix, the assessment was framed. In that situation, a particular decision was taken in favour of the assessee.

2.5. So far as, the cases relied upon by the Ld. CIT-DR is concerned, one such case is of M/s Crompton Greaves vs CIT (ITA No.1994/Mum/2013 and 2836/Mum/2014), order dated 01/02/2016. In that case, the Ld. Assessing Officer did not make necessary/proper enquiry with respect to the provision of Rs.17.72 crores on account of claim of deduction for liquidity damages, warranty, sales tax and excise duty. In the absence of proper enquiry, the revisions order was upheld.

The Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in CIT vs Varanasi Khanta Rao ((supra)), the assessee was proprietor of rice mills 10 Manoir Petro India Limited C.O. No.95/Mum/2015 declared certain income. The Ld. Assessing Officer completed assessment admitting the income declared by the assessee.

The Ld. Commissioner passed revisional order directing the Assessing Officer to call for records relating to minimum support price, fixed by State Government, towards purchase cost of different variety of paddy, sale price of rice fixed in respect of rice sold to FCI, in that situation, the revisional

order was held to be justified. Identically, the Hon'ble Madras High Court in Indian Textile vs CIT, wherein, the relief was given by the Assessing Officer without proper verification, therefore, the revisions order was held to be justified.

2.6. Now, we shall analyze some other cases which throws light on the issue like ACIT vs M.P. Warehousing and Logistic Corporation Ltd. (2012) 21 taxman.com 322 (Indore), wherein with respect to repairs and insurance of machinery, plant and furniture, it was held that the expenditure must be incurred by the assessee to preserve and maintain existing asset and such expenditure must not bring into existence a new asset. This case may not help the assessee because the expense were incurred with respect to repair and maintenance 11 Manoir Petro India Limited C.O. No.95/Mum/2015 of machinery, which is required for its smooth functioning, whereas, in the present appeal, the assessee incurring expenditure on renovation and even changed tiles every year, which seems to be quite unreasonable. Possibly, after few year, the tiles may be changed but not every year. It is also noted that the business of the assessee is broadly done on computer to know about the locations of the ship and it cannot be claimed that tiles are damaged every year. The business of the assessee are not of such nature, where heavy items are thrown on the tiles causing breakage and compulsorily the tiles are to be changed. The Ld. Assessing Officer has never examined the genuineness of such and its necessity. Therefore, the order is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue.

2.7. In the case of Narayn Tatu Rane vs Income Tax Officer (2016) 70 taxman.com 227 (Mum. Trib.). In this case, since, the commissioner had not brought any material on record to substantiate the inference and merely passed the revisional order only to carry out fishing and roving enquiries with objective of substituting his view with that of the 12 Manoir Petro India Limited C.O. No.95/Mum/2015 Assessing Officer, in that situation the revisional order was held to be not justified, whereas, it is not so in the present appeal.

2.8. In the case of M/s Amira Enterprises Ltd. vs Pr. CIT (ITA No.3206/Del./2017), the business of the assessee was trading of rice. It was found by the Tribunal that the principle CIT himself did not take any enquiry to reach to a conclusion that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. In that situation, a particular view was taken, therefore, this decision may not help the assessee.

2.9. Likewise, in the case of M/s Indus Best Hospitality vs Pr. CIT (ITA No.3125/Mum/2017), the bench relied upon the decision from Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Nirav Modi 390 ITR 292. The issue was whether the Ld. Assessing Officer examined the gift received by the assessee and accepted the same as genuine. No enquiry was caused by the ld. CIT to find out whether the Assessing Officer was satisfied with respect to correctness of the claim of the 13 Manoir Petro India Limited C.O. No.95/Mum/2015 assessee whether erroneous. In that situation, the bank took a decision.

2.10. So far as, the case of Metacaps Engineering and Mahendra Construction COMPANY (J.V.) (2017) 86 taxman.com 128 (Mum. ITAT) is concerned, therein the assessee was awarded as civil construction contract of a project. As the assessee had insufficient capital and infrastructure, it sub-contracted the project to sub-contractor ‘Urja” on back to back basis. The entire responsibility and completion of contract was taken over by the sub-contractor.

Revisional jurisdiction was invoked mainly on the ground of excessive expenses on labour payment, etc. In that situation, a particular view was taken.

2.11. In the case of Arvee International vs Addl. CIT

(2006) 8 SOT 452 (Mum. Trib.) , wherein, the assessment was framed without application of mind. It was held that mere allegation that Assessing Officer has taken a view in the matter will not put the matter beyond the purview of section 14 Manoir Petro India Limited C.O. No.95/Mum/2015 263 unless the view so taken by the Assessing Officer is a judicial view based on proper enquiry and legal aspect.

2.12. In Horizon Investment Company Ltd. vs CIT (ITA No.1593/Mum/2013), wherein, it was clear that there was a lack/absence of enquiry by the Assessing Officer, therefore, the jurisdiction in relation to deduction of the said expenditure was held to be validly assumed.

In the case of CIT v. Oxford University Press 108 2.13. ITR 166 (Bom.), wherein, the Hon'ble High Court held as under:-

“This court held in the case of Gulamhussein Ebrahim Matcheswalla v. CIT [1974] 97 ITR 24 (Bom.), that the expression ‘repair’ must be understood in contradistinction to renewal or restoration and the test to be applied is to see whether as a result of the expenditure what is being done is to preserve and maintain an already existing asset. If the amount is spent for the purpose of bringing into existence a new asset or obtaining a new advantage then such an expenditure would not be revenue expenditure. The mere quantum of expenditure is not by itself decisive of the question whether it is of the nature of revenue or capital. A sum can be allowed as cost of repairs even though the expenditure in a particular year is heavy on account of the fact that it is undertaken to remedy the effect of several years of wear and tear or neglect and also in spite of the fact that such expenditure may not be necessary for several years to come after repairs have been effected. It is thus clear that what the court is required to find out is whether as a result of the expenditure a new asset or a new advantage is being brought into existence. The court will also have regard to the aspect 15 Manoir Petro India Limited C.O. No.95/Mum/2015 as to whether as a result of the expenditure what is being done is to preserve and maintain an already existing asset. In the instant case, it was clear as to why and in what circumstances the guniting work was undertaken by the assessee in relation to the building. In their letter, the architects of the assessee stated that during the inspection of the building, which was undertaken in January, 1961, it was observed that the reinforcement of the slabs had decayed and cracks were visible underside of the slab and on the floors and some of the steel reinforcement in the slab had little or no cover. Further, that the assessee had been spending good amounts on the repairs of such cracks and plasterings of the slabs on which the reinforcements had disappeared but the amount spent for plaster patch work that was undertaken was a waste and that, therefore, since the plastering by means of an ordinary method was of no use, plastering by the process of guniting was advised. The nature of the guinting process was explained by the assessee. Having regard to the nature of the guniting process that was undertaken for carrying out the plastering and repair work to the building and the reasons and circumstances as to why the guniting process had been employed, it became very clear that by employing this method, which was nothing but an improved method of plastering and repairing work, all that the assessee had done was to preserve and maintain the already existing asset. No new asset or new advantage as such could be said to have been brought into existence by reason of expenditure incurred for doing the guinting work. As a result of guniting work done the assessee had not changed the nature of the asset, viz., the building as a whole, and the same in no way increased the accommodation or earning capacity of the building; in that sense no new advantage of enduring benefit had been brought into existence. The repairs also could not be regarded as heavy structural repairs, for, according to the assessee's architects, what could not be achieved by the ordinary method of plastering was achieved by a sophisticated method of process of guniting. In this view of the matter, it seemed very clear that the expenditure incurred for guniting work done as also the expenditure being the architects' fees paid in connection therewith would have to be regarded as expenditure of a revenue nature. All that the assessee did in the instant case was to undertake the plaster repairing work out by adopting a new method called guniting process, and by incurring the expenditure by adopting such a process the assessee was merely maintaining and preserving an asset which it already possessed and thus though to some extent the 16 Manoir Petro India Limited & C.O. No.95/Mum/2015 life of the asset had been prolonged and the asset was made to give better service then it was doing in the past, the expenditure would have to be regarded as revenue expenditure. II. Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business expenditure - Allowability of - Assessment year 1963-64 - During relevant assessment year, assessee-company paid certain amount to its deceased employee as gratuity, calculating quantum of 2 years' salary payable to deceased at time of his dealth - ITO disallowed assessee's claim in respect of aforesaid expenditure - AAC finding that gratuity fixed for non-covenanted staff was only 12 months' salary, held that gratuity payment in excess of 12 months' salary was ex-gratia payment - He thus, allowed deduction of amount representing 12 months' salary as legitimate business expenditure and disallowed rest as being in nature of ex- gratia payment - Tribunal confirmed AAC's order - Whether, on facts, Tribunal rightly affirmed AAC's order, and therefore, order passed by Tribunal could not be interfered with - Held, yes FACTS-II During the relevant assessment year, the assessee-company paid certain amount to its deceased employee as and by way of gratuity, roughly calculating the quantum of 2 years' salary payable to the deceased at the time of his death. The assessee claimed the said payment as an allowable expenditure in computing its assessable income. The ITO disallowed the claim on the ground that there was no contractual obligation to pay any gratuity and, therefore, the payment was an ex-gratia payment and not a legitimate business expenditure. On appeal, the AAC held that the gratuity paid to the deceased's heirs was equivalent to approximately 2 years' salary while the gratuity fixed for the non-covenanted staff was only 12 months' salary and in view of this he held that the gratuity payment in excess of 12 months' salary was an ex-gratia payment. In other words, he allowed a deduction of amount representing 12 months' salary as legitimate business expenditure but disallowed the rest as being in the nature of ex-gratia payment. On cross appeals, the Tribunal upheld the order of the AAC. On reference : HELD-II 17 Manoir Petro India Limited C.O. No.95/Mum/2015 In the instant case the AAC held that since the gratuity fixed for non- covenanted staff was subject to a maximum of 12 months' salary, in respect of covenanted staff the members thereof could at least expect that much gratuity if not more and, having regard to this aspect of the matter, the AAC held that part of the gratuity paid to the heirs of deceased to the extent of Rs. 24,000 being 12 months' salary could be regarded as proper and legitimate business expenditure while that part which was in excess of 12 months' salary was to be regarded as ex gratia payment and he, therefore, disallowed the excess amount. The matter was carried in further appeal to the Tribunal, the Tribunal had confirmed this finding of the AAC. In this view of the matter, it was held that the Tribunal was right in allowing a deduction of the expenditure only to the extent of Rs. 24,000 being the part of the gratuity amount paid by the assessee to the heirs of deceased.”

2.14. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in CIT vs J.K.

Industries Pvt. Ltd. 125 ITR 218 (Cal.), relied upon by the assessee, held as under:

It had been found by the Tribunal that with the capital borrowed the assessee had acquired a business asset for the purposes of its own business. Further finding was that it was the object of the assessee to house its own office as also the offices of the companies managed by it. The findings of the Tribunal had not been challenged nor was it contended at any stage that the housing of the offices of the managed companies was not a part of the business of the assessee. Had this point been mooted at the proper stage the agreements between the assessee and the managed companies could have been considered to ascertain whether the assessee was in any way liable to arrange for office of the managed companies. Following the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Kirkend Coal Co. [1969] 74 ITR 67 the question which was neither raised nor argued before the Tribunal could not be raised at this stage. Even otherwise, it could not be said that it would not be conducive to the business of the assessee if all the companies managed by it were housed in the same building. It would lead to some economy and greater efficiency in management. In view of aforesaid, it could be concluded that amounts paid as interest and the municipal taxes were allowable as deduction. As regards renovation expenses for the assessment year 1961-62, the expenses in putting up the wooden panelling did not result in any enduring benefit to 18 Manoir Petro India Limited C.O. No.95/Mum/2015 the assessee and, therefore, was deductible as a revenue expenditure. The revenue did not challenge the other expenses. Hence the entire expenditure on renovation was deductible.

2.15. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in Rajmandir Estate Pvt. Ltd. vs Pr. CIT (2016) 70 taxman.com 124 (Calc.)

order dated 13/05/2016 and the ratio laid down therein supports the case of the Revenue. It is noteworthy that while coming to a particular conclusion, Hon'ble Calcutta High Court considered following judicial pronouncements:- i. CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. [1973] 91 ITR 8 (SC) (para 3), ii. Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801/80 Taxman 89 (SC) (para 4), iii. CIT v. Nova Promoters & Finlease (P.) Ltd. [2012] 342 ITR 169/206 Taxman 207/18 taxmann.com 217 (Delhi) (para 4), iv. CIT v. Durga Prasad More [19711] 82 ITR 540 (SC) (para 6), v. CIT v. Precision Finance (P.) Ltd. [1994] 208 ITR 465/[1995] 82 Taxman 31 (Cal.) (para 6), vi. ITO v. DG Housing Projects Ltd. [2012] 343 ITR 329/212 Taxman 132 (Mag.)/[2012] 20 taxmann.com 587 (Delhi) (para 7), vii. DIT v. Jyoti Foundation [2013] 35 ITR 388/219 Taxman 105/38 taxmann.com 180 (Delhi) (para 7), viii. CIT v. Steller Investment Ltd. [1991] 192 ITR 287/59 Taxman 568 (Delhi) (para 8), ix. CIT v. Sophia Finance Ltd. [1994] 205 ITR 98/70 Taxman 69 (Delhi) (FB) (para 8), 19 Manoir Petro India Limited C.O. No.95/Mum/2015 x. CIT v. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. [2008] 299 ITR 268/[2007] 158 Taxman 440 (Delhi)(para 8), xi. Lotus Capital Financial Services Ltd. v. ITO [IT Appeal No. 479 (Kol.) of 2011] (para 8), xii. CIT v. Lotus Capital Financial Services (P.) Ltd. [ITAT No. 125 of 2012] (para 8), xiii. CIT v. Dataware (P.) Ltd. [ITAT No. 263 of 2011] (para 8), xiv. CIT v. Roseberry Mercantile (P.) Ltd. [G.A. No. 3296 of 2010, dated 10-1-2011] (para 8), xv. CIT v. Sanchati Projects (P.) Ltd. [ITAT No. 140 of 2011] (para 8), xvi. CIT v. Samir Bio-Tech. (P.) Ltd. [2010] 325 ITR 294 (Delhi) (para 8), xvii. CIT v. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. [2014] 361 ITR 220/[2012] 206 Taxman 254/19 taxmann.com 26 (Delhi) (para 8), xviii. CIT v. Dwarkadhish Capital (P.) Ltd. [2011] 330 ITR 298/[2010] 194 Taxman 43 (Delhi) (paras 9, 10), xix. CIT v. Kinetic Capital Finance Ltd. [2013] 354 ITR 296/[2011] 202 Taxman 548/14 taxmann.com 150 (Delhi) (paras 9, 10), xx. Zafa Ahmad & Co. v. CIT [2013] 214 Taxman 440/30 taxmann.com 267 (All.) (paras 9, 10), xxi. Anil Rice Mills v. CIT [2006] 282 ITR 236/[2005] 149 Taxman 313 (All.) (paras 9, 10), xxii. CIT v. Five Vision Promoters (P.) Ltd. [2016] 380 ITR 289/236 Taxman 502/65 taxmann.com 71 (Delhi) (para 11), xxiii. CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108/71 Taxman 585 (Bom.) (para 12), xxiv. Hari Iron Trading Co. v. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 437/131 Taxman 535 (Punj. & Har.) (para 12), 20 Manoir Petro India Limited C.O. No.95/Mum/2015 xxv. CIT v. Leisure Wear Exports (P.) Ltd. [2012] 341 ITR 166/[2011] 202 Taxman 130/11 taxmann.com 54 (Delhi) (para 13), xxvi. Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC) (para 14), xxvii. Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC) (para 14), xxviii. Reliance Jute & Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 120 ITR 921/2 Taxman 417 (SC) (para 15), xxix. Karimtharuvi Tea Estate Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1966] 60 ITR 262 (SC) (para 15), xxx. CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [2011] 332 ITR 167/[2010] 189 Taxman 436 (Delhi) (para 16), xxxi. Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. ITO [1978] 115 ITR 799 (Cal.) (para 17), xxxii. Vijay Mallya v. Asstt. CIT [2003] 131 Taxman 477 (Cal.) (para 17), xxxiii. CIT v. J.L. Morrison (India) Ltd. [2014] 366 ITR 593/225 Taxman 17 (Mag.)/46 taxmann.com 215 (Cal.) (para 17), xxxiv. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83/109 Taxman 66 (SC) (para 18), xxxv. CIT v. Max India Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 282/166 Taxman 188 (SC) (para 18), xxxvi. CIT v. Maithan International [2015] 375 ITR 123/231 Taxman 381/56 taxmann.com 283 (Cal.) (para 20), xxxvii. CIT v. Navodaya Castles (P.) Ltd. [2014] 367 ITR 306/226 Taxman 190/50 taxmann.com 110 (Delhi) (para 20), xxxviii. CIT v. N.R. Portfolio (P.) Ltd. [2013] 214 Taxman 408/29 taxmann.com 291 (Delhi) (para 20), xxxix. CIT v. Active Traders (P.) Ltd. [1995] 214 ITR 583/[1993] 69 Taxman 281 (Cal.) (para 20), 21 Manoir Petro India Limited C.O. No.95/Mum/2015 xl. CIT v. Jawahar Bhattacharjee [2012] 341 ITR 434/209 Taxman 174/24 taxmann.com 215 (Gau.) (FB) (para 20) and xli. Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC) (para 27).

2.16. So far as, the cases relied upon by the assessee like CIT vs Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. and CIT vs Nirav Modi ((supra)) are concerned, no doubt these cases throw light on the issue but were decided by Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court to the peculiar facts of the case and on the basis of factual finding recorded by the Tribunal.

2.17. Admittedly, an incorrect assumption of fact or an incorrect application of law would satisfy the requirement of order being erroneous u/s. 263 of the Act. The phrase “prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue” u/s. 263, has to be read in conjunction with the expression “erroneous” order by the Assessing Officer. Every loss of Revenue as a consequence of assessment order cannot be termed as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, meaning thereby, “prejudice” must be prejudice to the Revenue administration. At the same time, if another view is possible, revision is not permissible. Our view 22 Manoir Petro India Limited C.O. No.95/Mum/2015 is fortified by the decision from Himachal Pradesh Financial Corp. (186 Taxmann 105)(HP), Bismillah Trading Co. (248 ITR 292)(Ker.) and CIT vs. Green World Corpn. (314 ITR 81)(SC). For invoking revisional jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act, the assessment order must contain grievous error which is subversive of the administration of Revenue. Further, exact error must be disclosed by the Commissioner as was held in CIT vs. G.K. Kabra (211 ITR 336)(AP). Section 263 of the Act enables the Commissioner to have a re-look at the orders or proceedings of the lower authority to effect correction, if so needed, particularly, if the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The object of the provision is to raise revenue for the state and section 263 is enabling provision conferring jurisdiction upon the Commissioner to revise the order. The provision is intended to plug the leakage of the revenue by the erroneous and prejudicial order. Our view find support from the ratio laid down in following decisions:- i. CIT vs Infosys Technologies ltd. (2012) 341 ITR 293 (Karn.), 23 Manoir Petro India Limited C.O. No.95/Mum/2015 ii. CIT vs Jawahar Bhattacharyaji (2012) 341 ITR 434 (Guwahati) (FB), iii. CIT vs Leisure wear Exports Ltd. (2012) 341 ITR 166 (Del.), iv. CIT vs Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. (2011) 336 ITR 366 (Del.), v. R.A. Himmatsinghka & Company vs CIT (2012) 340 ITR 253 (Pat.) vi. CIT vs Rajeev Agnihotri (2011) 332 ITR 608 (P & H), vii. CIT vs DLF Ltd. (2013) 350 ITR 555 (Del.), viii. CIT vs Gabreal India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108, 114 (Bom.), ix. Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. vs CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC), x. Nabha Investments Pvt. ltd. vs UOI (2000) 246 ITR 41 (Del.), xi. Bismillah Trading Company Ltd. vs IO (2001) 248 ITR 292, 308 (Kerala), xii. Paul Mathews & Sons vs CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101, 113 (Kerala), xiii. CIT vs Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 490, 500 (Mad.), xiv. Rayon Silk Mills vs CIT 221 ITR 155 (Guj.)

2.18. If the aforesaid judicial pronouncements are kept in juxtaposition with the facts of the present appeal and analyzed, we find that the assessee company credited Rs.83,94,764/- to the profit & loss account as other income, whereas, the Ld. Assessing Officer has taken taxable income of Rs.17,22,360/- only. The Ld. Assessing Officer also disallowed other expenses by opining that the assessee has 24 Manoir Petro India Limited C.O. No.95/Mum/2015 not taken any business activity during the year but the record says that during Assessment Year 2009-10, the assessee claimed business loss of Rs.1,05,37,985/- but there was no business activity. Therefore, the assessment order was found to be erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. During Assessment Year 2009-10, the assessee entered in to a non-compete agreement with a corporate entity belonging to Netrawala Group. Under this agreement, the assessee was to pay an amount of Rs.2,83,81,500/- to netrawala Group in consideration of them agreeing to non-compete with the assessee. Out of the said amount, the amount of Rs.2,00,34,000/- was paid during the relevant year for Assessment Year 2009-10 and the balance remains outstanding. During Assessment Year 2010-11, which is under consideration, the non-compete agreement was dispensed with. The entire amount of non- compete fee which became loss to the assessee and claimed as debit entry in the profit & loss account. The Ld. Assessing Officer has made no discussion about the factual matrix and simply framed the assessment without examining the true 25 Manoir Petro India Limited C.O. No.95/Mum/2015 facts. The Ld. Assessing Officer has not examined whether the amount forfeited by Netrawala Group and also there is no discussion whether it was capital receipt or revenue receipt in the hands of Netrawala Groups, thus, we found that the assessment order was passed without examining the true facts and thus there is lack of application of mind by the Ld. Assessing Officer, consequently, we find no infirmity in the impugned order. Even otherwise, no grievance is caused in setting aside the matter to the file of the Ld. Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The appeal of the assessee, is therefore, dismissed.

is that the assessee company vide ground no. 5 wrongly prayed before the Tribunal to decide the case on merit as the adjustment done by the assessee while filing the return of income and thus, the above plea does not emanate from the order passed under section 263 of the Act, thus, no adjudication is required. Considering the ground raised by the Revenue, we find no merit, therefore, the cross objection

26. Manoir Petro India Limited C.O. No.95/Mum/2015 of the Revenue does not survive and even since we have upheld the revisional jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act, the cross objection of the Revenue has become in- fructuous.

Finally, the appeal of the assessee as well as the cross objection of the Revenue are dismissed.