IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD ‘A’ BENCH, HYDERABAD. BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L. P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.191/Hyd/2021 (Assessment Year : 2016-17) M/s. Vins Bioproducts Limited, Hyderabad. PAN AABCV0226F .....Appellant. Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 17(2), Hyderabad. .....Respondent. Appellant By : Shri Bhupesh Dand, CA Respondent By : Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-D.R. Date of Hearing : 12.04.2022. Date of Pronouncement : 13.04.2022. O R D E R Per Shri S.S. Godara, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for Asst. Year 2016-17 arises against the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad-2’s order dt.9.3.2021 passed in case No. ITBA / REV / F/REV5/2020-21/1031350879 in proceedings under Section 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ in short). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2 ITA No.191/Hyd/2021 2. We straightaway notice at the outset that the learned PCIT’s revision direction under challenge herein hold the corresponding 143(3) regular assessment framed on 25.12.2018 as an erroneous one causing prejudice to the interest of the Revenue as follows : --Space left intentionally-- 3 ITA No.191/Hyd/2021 4 ITA No.191/Hyd/2021 5 ITA No.191/Hyd/2021 6 ITA No.191/Hyd/2021 7 ITA No.191/Hyd/2021 8 ITA No.191/Hyd/2021 3. Both the learned representatives reiterate their respective stands during the course of hearing before us. We notice in this factual backdrop that the PCIT’s first and foremost issue for exercising his impugned 263 revision jurisdiction is that the Assessing Officer had not carried out any enquiry(ies) regarding assessee's section 35(2AB) deduction claim in the course of scrutiny. The same is found to be going against the record wherein the assessee has duly filed the Assessing Officer’s 142(1) show cause notice dt.16.11.2018 raising the specific issue of 35(2AB) weighted deduction of Rs.3,15,64,284 along with the supporting documents as well as DSIR approval in the 9 ITA No.191/Hyd/2021 prescribed format. The assessee's paper book running into 42 pages suggests that the DSIR had granted its registration in prescribed format from 17.06.2015 onwards for the period beyond 31.03.2015 pertaining to its inhouse R&D unit(s). Coupled with this, this tribunal's co-ordinate bench order in Century Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT in ITA No.942/Hyd/2017 dt.20.07.2018 holds that an assessee is very much eligible for the impugned weighted deduction once the said prescribed authority approves the said facility as under : “ 5. Even though assessee raised grounds on the issue of jurisdiction of the non-existing company, these grounds are not argued as the assessee wants the issues to be considered on merits. 10 ITA No.191/Hyd/2021 -- Space left intentionally -- 11 ITA No.191/Hyd/2021 12 ITA No.191/Hyd/2021 13 ITA No.191/Hyd/2021 4. Learned CIT-DR at this stage argued that there is no detailed discussion forthcoming in the assessment findings dealing with the instant issue. The same hardly any substance in light of CIT Vs. Gabriel India Limited (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) wherein their lordships hold that mere non-discussion in an assessment does not render it to be erroneous one causing prejudice to the interest of Revenue once the Assessing Officer conducts all due enquiry(ies) in the course of scrutiny. We therefore hold the PCIT’s 14 ITA No.191/Hyd/2021 impugned revision directions herein are not sustainable in law. The same stand reversed. 5. This assessee's appeal is allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 13th April, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (L.P. SAHU) (S.S. GODARA) Accountant Member Judicial Member Hyderabad, Dt. 13.04.2022. * Reddy gp Copy to : 1. M/s. Vins Bioproducts Limited, 806, Essjay House, Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 2. ACIT, Circle 17(2), Hyderabad. 3. Pr. C I T, Hyderabad-2, Hyderabad. 4. DR, ITAT, Hyderabad. 5. Guard File. By Order Sr. Pvt. Secretary, ITAT, Hyderabad.