HBC Lifesciences Private Limited, Gandhinagar V. The Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad

ITA 328/AHD/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6019 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-07-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 19-06-2024
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 03-05-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Revision of order; Business expenditure; TDS; Set aside
• Section: 32; 68; 37; 263; 144; 143(3); 142(1); 37(1); 194J; 22

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE Ms. SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE, JUDICAL MEMBER & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 328/Ahd/2023 (िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assess ment Year : 2018-19) HB C Li fe sci en ce s Pri va te Li mit ed B- 21 8, Ma yu r Ho us e, G.I .D .C ., E lec tr on i c E st at e Sec to r- 25 , Ga nd hin aga r, Gu jar at , 38 20 16 बनाम बनामबनाम बनाम/ V s . Pri nc ip al C o mm iss io ne r of In co me T ax -3 Ah me da bad ᭭थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./P A N / G IR N o . : A A C C H 1 4 0 7 M (Appellant) . . (Respondent) अपीलाथᱮ ओर से /Appellant by : Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, A.R. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Respondent by : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT. DR D a t e o f H e a r i n g 20/06/2024 D a t e o f P r o n o u n c e m e n t 05/07/2024 O R D E R PER SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, AM: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Principal Co mmissioner of Inco me Tax-3, Ah medabad, (in short the ‘PCI T’) dated 25.03.2023 in exercise of the revisionary powers under Section 263 of the Inco me-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referr ed to as “the Act” in short], for the Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the return of income for A.Y. 2018-19 was filed b y the asses see on 30.10.2018 declaring ITA No. 328/Ahd/2023 [HBC Lifesciences Private Limited vs.Pr.CIT] A.Y. 2018-19 - 2 – income of Rs.44,02,420/-. The case was selected f or li mited scrutiny on the iss ue of ‘business expenses’. The asse ss ment was co mpleted under S ection 143(3) of the Act on 03.02.2021 and the returned income o f the assessee was accepted. The a ssessment record was subsequently called for by the PCI T wherein it was noticed that the assessee had claimed business promotion expense of Rs.5,12,01,872/- which was in the nature of freebies/ monetar y grant for pro moting its products. Ac cording to the Ld. PCIT, this business promotion expense was req uired to be disallowed which was not done by t he AO and, theref ore, the order of t he AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Accordingly, a notice under Section 263 of the Act was issued by the PCIT on 17.02.2023 and after considering the reply of the assessee, the Ld. P CIT passed order under Section 263 of the Act dated 25.03.2023 setting aside the order of the AO f or passing fresh order after making necessar y enquiries relating to business pro motion expenses. According to t he Ld. PCIT the explanation of the assessee was not satisfactory and contrary to the provision of Section 37 of the Act, which re quired disallowance of the clai m. 3. Aggrieved with the order of the PCIT, the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. The assessee has taken the following grounds in this appeal: “1. The order passed by the PCIT is bad in law and needs to be quashed. It is submitted it be so held now. 1.1 The order has been passed without complying with the requirements of the CBDT circular no.19/2019 dated 14th August 2019. It is submitted it be so held now ITA No. 328/Ahd/2023 [HBC Lifesciences Private Limited vs.Pr.CIT] A.Y. 2018-19 - 3 – 2. The PCIT erred on facts and in law in holding that the order passed by the Assessing officer (AO) under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act (Act) was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and thereby setting aside the order with direction for fresh assessment order. It is submitted it be so held now. 2.1 The PCIT erred in facts and in law in invoking Explanation 2 to sub section (1) of section 263 of the Act while holding that the assessment order was passed without proper enquiry and verification of facts when in fact inquiry had been made and details were submitted in the course of regular proceedings. It is submitted it be so held now. 2.2 The PCIT erred in facts and in law in holding that the contention raised by the appellant necessitates re-verification of the matter in its entirety without appreciating that section 263 does not confer the power to re-review the same set of records. It is submitted it be so held now. 2.3 The learned PCIT erred on facts in considering that the assessee has failed to submit the relevant necessary documents during the course of assessment proceedings. It is submitted that it be so held now. 3. The learned PCIT has erred in law and in facts in not appreciating that the expenses are incurred purely for the purpose of business and are allowable as business expenditure and it is not impaired by explanation 1 to section 37(1) of the Act. It is submitted that it be so held now. 3.1. The learned PCIT has erred in not appreciating that the expenditure incurred are not in violation of MCA guidelines and incurred wholly and exclusive for the business purpose and no disallowance is called for in respect of business promotion expenditure. It is submitted that it be so held now.” 5. Shri S . N. Soparkar, Sr . Advocate ap pearing for the assessee submitted that the issue of business pro motion expense was exa mined b y the AO in detail in the course of a ssessment proceedings. The assessee has a filed a paper book containing 109 pages and the Ld. Counsel has meticulously taken us through the said paper bo ok. He has dra wn ar e attention to various notices issued by t he AO in the course of assess ment an d the reply filed by the assessee. The Ld. AR explained that the details of business pro motion expense was cal led for and exa mined b y the AO in great detail and after exa mining the nature of e xpenditure and the explanation of the assessee, t he AO had taken a conscious ITA No. 328/Ahd/2023 [HBC Lifesciences Private Limited vs.Pr.CIT] A.Y. 2018-19 - 4 – decision that no disallowance was called for in respect of these expenses. The Ld. Counsel contended that when the matter was exa mined in-depth b y the AO, the Ld. PCI T was not correct in initiating proceedings under Section 263 of the Act on the ground that the matter wa s not exa mined b y the AO. He also p ointed out that the Ld. PC IT had not invoked the provision of Ex planation- 2 to Section 263 of the Act in the notice under Section 263 of the Act. He has place d reliance on the f ollowing decisions in support of his contention that the order of th e AO was not erro neous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and, therefore, the order under Section 263 of the Act passed b y the Ld. PC IT should be quashed. i. CIT vs . Ka ma l Ga l a n i, [ 2 0 1 8] 9 5 ta xma nn .co m 2 6 1 (Gu ja ra t) ii . CIT vs. Ka ma l Ga l a n i, [ 2 0 19] 1 1 0 taxma n n .co m 213 (S C) ii i. PCIT vs. S h ree Ga ya tri Asso cia tes, [ 2 0 19] 10 6 ta xmann .co m 3 1 9 S C) iv. Dia min es & ch emi ca ls L td . vs. PCIT in ITA No . 14 7 2 /Ah d / 2 0 15 & ITA No . 2 1 9 /Ah d /2 0 17 , o rd er d a ted 1 4 .1 2 .2 02 2 v. Na tio n a l Da iry Develo p men t Bo a rd vs. PCIT in ITA No .2 1 5 /Ah d /2 02 2 , o rd er d a ted 1 2 .0 7 .2 0 23 vi. Leefo rd Hea lth ca r e Limi ted vs. PCI T in ITA No s. 3 4 3 to 3 5 3 /Ch d /2 02 2 , o rder d a ted 2 9 .0 7 .2 0 22 vii . M/s. Ar isto Ph a rma ceu tica ls P vt . L td . vs. PCIT in ITA No s. 2 9 82 /Mu m/2 0 17 &5 5 4 /Mu m/20 1 8 , o rd er d a ted 0 7 .1 2 .2 01 8 vii i . To rren t Ph a rma ceu tica l s Ltd . vs . DCIT in ITA No . 1 6 4 /Ah d /20 1 8 , o rder d a ted 0 8 .0 8 .2 0 18 ix. IPCA La b o ra to ries Ltd . vs. DCIT, [ 2 0 2 4] 16 1 ta xma nn .co m 5 1 1 (Mu mba i – Tri b .) ITA No. 328/Ahd/2023 [HBC Lifesciences Private Limited vs.Pr.CIT] A.Y. 2018-19 - 5 – 6. Per contra, the Ld . CI T-DR sub mitted that the AO had not considered the CBDT Circular dated 01.08.2012 regarding disallowance of freebies to medi cal practitioners and their professional associates by phar maceutical and allied health sector industries and, therefore, hi s order was e rroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Accordingly, the Ld. PCIT had rightl y e xercised the revisional jurisdiction to set aside the matter for fre sh exa mination of this issue. The Ld. CI T.DR also submitted tha t though it was not explicitly mentioned in the notice, the Explanation-2 to Section 263 of the Act was i mplicitly invoked by the P CIT. He further s ubmitted that the order of the AO was c r yptic, onl y accepting the returned income of the assessee, and ther e was no evidence of application of mind b y the AO on this issue. The ld. CI T- DR also sub mitted that the decisions relied upon by the Ld . Co unsel were distinct on facts and he strongly supported the order of the PCI T. 7. In re joinder, the Ld. Sr . Counsel submitted that once th e AO had made enquiries and applied his mind and was satisfied with the clai m of the assessee, there was no require ment that such satisfaction should be docu mented and recorded in the assessment order. He reiterat ed that the order of the AO was not at all erroneous and, therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction by the Ld. PCIT under Se ction 263 of the Act, was not proper. 8. We have considered the rival submissions. There is no dispute to the fact that the Ld. P CIT had inherent power to review the order of the AO, if the order of the AO is found to be ITA No. 328/Ahd/2023 [HBC Lifesciences Private Limited vs.Pr.CIT] A.Y. 2018-19 - 6 – erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. We have to, therefore, examine whether the basic condition that the order of the AO was er roneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue was satisfied in this case and if so, how this fact was brought out in the order under Secti on 263 of the Act passed by the Ld. PCIT. 9. The Ld . P CIT has observed in the notice under Section 263 of the Act dated 17.02.2023 that the business promotion expense clai med b y the as sessee was in the nature of f reebies/ monetar y grant for pro moting products and was required to be di sallowed. Further that the AO had passed t he assess ment or der without making proper enq uiry and the required addition in respect of this clai m. It is not apparent as to on what basis the Ld. PCI T had arrived at such conclusion. It is found that the assessee has debited business pro motion expenses of Rs.5,12,01,872/- in Schedule 20 of i ts P&L a ccount. The AO vide notice under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 18.01.2020 had called for details of sales pro motion expenses alongwith the docu mentar y evidences. In response, the assessee had filed the reply dated 22.01.2020, wher e by the details of t hese expenses was furnished and nature thereof was also explained. Thereafter , th e AO had issued another notice under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 28.01.2020 and the details of sal es pro motion expenses was called for in specific for mat, which was furnished by th e assessee vide letter dated 17.03.2020. The br eak up of business pro motion expenses as furnished by the assessee is found to be as under: ITA No. 328/Ahd/2023 [HBC Lifesciences Private Limited vs.Pr.CIT] A.Y. 2018-19 - 7 – S r . N o . N a t u r e o f e x p e n s e s A mo u n t ( R s . ) 1 A d v i s o r y f e e s t o d o c t o r s 1 , 6 8 , 0 2 , 4 4 3 2 D i s c o u n t g i v e n t o c u s t o m e r 1 8 , 6 4 , 6 6 1 3 R e i m b u r s e m e n t f o r e x p e n s e s 1 , 2 6 , 3 3 , 9 5 4 4 F i x t u r e s a n d o t h e r i n s t a l l a t i o n s 5 , 3 1 , 5 1 6 5 T o u r a n d T r a v e l l i n g a n d c a r r e n t a l s 4 4 , 1 3 , 8 6 1 6 M o b i l e P h o n e e x p e n s e s 3 2 , 9 9 , 1 6 2 7 M e d i c a l i n s t r u m e n t s , S u r g i c a l , L C D / T V , L a p t o p / c o m p u t e r 2 0 , 3 0 , 2 5 8 8 D r e s s M a t e r i a l s 8 1 8 2 5 3 5 9 o t h e r m i s c e l l a n e o u s i t e m s 1 4 4 3 4 8 2 T o t a l 5 , 1 2 , 0 1 , 8 7 2 10. Further, the det ails of above s ub-expenses was also furnished by the a ssessee and nature of each ite m of e xpenditure was explained. For exa mple , it i s found that the payment of Rs.1,68,02,443/- in respect of advisor y fee to Doctors was made to 1572 Doctors a nd the details in the for mat of date, voucher no., na me of Doct or, fe es paid, TDS rate etc. was fu rnished by the assessee. Si mi lar details in respect of all other expenses was filed by the assessee before the AO. 11. Thus, it is appare nt fro m the above facts that the details of business promotion expenses was c alled for and exa mined in detail by the AO in the course of a ssessment proceed ing. After exa mining the details as brought on record b y the assessee, the AO has taken a considered decision that no disallowance on account of business pro motion expenses was called for. It is evident from the details of business pro motion expenses that the expenditure was not in the nature of freebies/ monetar y grant and ITA No. 328/Ahd/2023 [HBC Lifesciences Private Limited vs.Pr.CIT] A.Y. 2018-19 - 8 – that all the pa yme nts were not mad e to Doctors as observed by the ld. PC IT. Ther e was advisor y fee payment of Rs.1,6 8,02,443/- which can be h eld as pa yment to Doctors and liable for disallowance. This pa yment was explained and justified by the assessee on the basis of agree ment with the r espective Doctors for giving advisor y infor mation for the drugs effect on the patients co ming to their clinic. This expenditure was explained to be of professional in nature and TDS under Section 194J of the Act was also d educted thereon, wherever applicable. This payment being in the nature of professional fee and not being as monetar y grant t o Doctors, was accepted b y the AO after considering the explanation of the assessee and examining the sa mple cop y of ag ree ment with Doctors as brought on record in the course of assess ment proceeding. The observation of the Ld. PCIT that this pa yment was in the na ture of grant to Doctors and that no TDS was made on these pa yments is, therefore , not found correct. The Ld. P CIT has relied upon CBDT Circular No.5//2012 and the Supreme Court judge ment in the case of Apex Laboratories (P) Ltd v DCI T 135 ta xmann.com 286 in her order. To invoke the applicability of CBDT Circular and the Apex Court decision, it has to be first established that freebies wer e given to medical practitioners, only therea fter the disallowance can be made in r espect of such freebie and pa yment made to the Doctors. When the matter was exa mined by the AO in the course of assessment procee dings and no freebie was found to be provided to the Doctors, there was no question of any disallowance in accordance with t he Board ’s Circul ar, under Section 37 of the Act. ITA No. 328/Ahd/2023 [HBC Lifesciences Private Limited vs.Pr.CIT] A.Y. 2018-19 - 9 – 12. It has been held by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kamal Ga lani (supra) that once the Assessing Officer carried out detailed inquiries, it was not open for the Co mmissioner to reopen the issue on mere app rehension and surmises. The Explanation-2 to Section 263 of the Act stipulates that the order of the AO wi ll be dee med to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of th e revenue, if suc h order is passed without making enquiries for verifications which should have been made or if the order is passed allowing any relief without enquiring into the clai m. This condition is not found fulfilled in this case as the AO had made detailed inquiries on the issue of business expenditure in the course of assessment proceedings. It was held by the Hon’ble Delhi High C ourt in the case of CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. - (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) that one has to see from the records as to whether there was application of mind before allowing the expenditure and one has to keep in mind the distinction between ‘lack of inquiry’ and ‘i nadequate inquiry’. If there was an y enquiry, even inadequate, that would not by itself give occasion to the Co mmissioner to pass order under Section 263 of the Act mer ely because he has a different opinion in the mat ter. It is onl y in c ases of ‘lack of inquiry’ that such a course of a ction would be open. The present c ase cannot be treated as a ca se of ‘lack of inquiry’ as the AO had deeply exa mined the issue in the course of assessment procee ding. Even if the inquiry was not adequate in the opinion of the Ld. PC IT, this doesn’t give hi m jurisdictional power to review the order of the AO. The scop e of Co mmissioner’s power under S ection 263 of the Act would be available when the AO conducts no enquiry ITA No. 328/Ahd/2023 [HBC Lifesciences Private Limited vs.Pr.CIT] A.Y. 2018-19 - 10 – or no proper enquir y or doesn’t apply his mind to the l egal issues arising out of the material on record; only then the revisional power is available. In the present case, the AO did conduct proper inquiries based on which he ca me to a legal conclusion, which was plausible and, therefore , the Ld. PCI T was not justified in invoking the revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act directing further inquiries or taking different view in the matter . 13. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Tr ibunal in the case of Torrent Phar mace uticals Ltd. (supra) had held as under: “ 9 . 2 A b a r e r e a d i n g o f t h e C i r c u l a r g i v e s a s o m e w h at i m p r e s s i o n t h a t t h e E x p l a n a t i o n 2 w a s i n s e r t e d f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f pr o v i d i n g c l a r i t y o n t h e e x p r e s s i o n ‘ e r r o n e o u s i n s o f a r a s i t i s p r e j u di c i a l t o t h e i n t e r e s t o f t h e R e v e n u e ’ . T h e E x p l a n a t i o n b e i n g c l a r i f i c a t o r y w o u l d n o t l e a d t o d i l u t i o n o f t h e b a s i c r e q u i r e m e n t s o f S e c t i o n 2 6 3 ( 1) o f t h e A c t . T h e p r o v i s i o n s o f S e c t i o n 2 6 3 a l t h o u g h a p p e a r s t o b e o f a v e r y w i d e a m p l i t u d e a n d m o r e p a r t i c u l a r l y a f t e r i n s e r t i o n o f E x p l a n a t i on 2 b u t c a n n o t p o s s i b l y m e a n t h a t r e c o u r s e t o S e c t i o n 2 6 3 o f t h e Ac t w o u l d b e a v a i l a b l e t o t h e R e v i s i o n a l A u t h o r i t y o n e a c h a n d e v e r y i n a d eq u a c y i n t h e m a t t e r o f i n q u i r i e s a n d v e r i f i c a t i o n a s p e r c e i v e d b y t h e Re v i s i o n a l A u t h o r i t y . T h e R e v i s i o n a l a c t i o n p e r c e i v e d o n t h e p r e t e x t o f in a d e q u a c y o f e n q u i r y i n a p l a n n e r y a n d b l a n k e t m a n n e r m u s t b e d e s i s t e d fr o m . T h e o b j e c t o f s u c h E x p l a n a t i o n i s p r o b a b l y t o d i s s u a d e t h e A O f r om p a s s i n g o r d e r s i n a r o u t i n e a n d p e r f u n c t o r y m a n n e r a n d w h e r e h e f a i l ed t o c a r r y o u t t h e r e l e v a n t a n d n e c e s s a r y i n q u i r i e s o r w h e r e t h e A O h as n o t a p p l i e d m i n d o n i m p o r t a n t a s p e c t s . H o w e v e r , i n t h e s a m e v a i n w he r e t h e p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e s a b s e n c e o f c u l pa b i l i t y , a n o n e r o u s b u r d e n c a n n o t o b v i o u s l y b e f a s t e n e d u p o n t h e A O w h il e m a k i n g a s s e s s m e n t i n t h e n a m e o f i n a d e q u a c y i n i n q u i r i e s or v e r i f i c a t i o n a s p e r c e i v e d i n t h e o p i n i o n o f t h e R e v i s i o n a l A u t h o r i ty . I t g o e s w i t h o u t s a y i n g t h a t t h e e x e r c i s e o f s t a t u t o r y p o w e r s i s d e pe n d e n t o n e x i s t e n c e o f o b j e c t i v e f a c t s . T h e p o w e r s o u t l i n e d u n d e r s . 2 6 3 of t h e A c t a r e e x t r a o r d i n a r y a n d d r a s t i c i n n a t u r e a n d t h u s c a n n o t b e r e a d t o h o l d t h a t a n u n c o n t r o l l e d , u n g u i d e d a n d u n c a n a l i s e d p o w e r s a re v e s t e d w i t h t h e c o m p e t e n t a u t h o r i t y . T h e p o w e r s u n d e r s . 2 6 3 o f t h e A c t h o w s o e v e r s w e e p i n g a r e n o t b l a n k e t n e v e r t h e l e s s . T h e A O c a n no t b e e x p e c t e d t o g o t o t h e l a s t m i l e i n a n e n q u i r y o n t h e i s s u e o r i n d ul g e i n f l e e t i n g i n q u i r i e s . T h e a c t i o n o f t h e R e v i s i o n a l C o m m i s s i o n e r b a s e d o n s u c h e x p e c t a t i o n r e q u i r e s t o b e s t r u c k d o w n . ” 9 . 3 T h e u s e o f e x p r e s s i o n ‘ w h i c h s h o u l d h a v e b e e n ma d e ’ i n c l a u s e ( a ) t o E x p l a n a t i o n 2 t o S e c t i o n 2 6 3 o f t h e A c t i s s i g n if i c a n t . T h i s i m p l i e d l y ITA No. 328/Ahd/2023 [HBC Lifesciences Private Limited vs.Pr.CIT] A.Y. 2018-19 - 11 – t e s t s t h e a c t i o n o f A O o n t h e t o u c h s t o n e o f r e a s o n ab l e n e s s a n d r a t i o n a l i t y i n a p p r o a c h . I t c l e a r l y s u g g e s t s t h a t c o n t e x t a l s o h o l d s t h e k e y i n t h e m a t t e r o f e n q u i r y . T h e a c t i o n o f t h e A O r e q u i r e s to b e e v a l u a t e d c o n t e x t u a l l y . I f t h e a f o r e s a i d E x p l a n a t i o n i s r e a d i n a a b s t r a c t m a n n e r d e h o r s e t h e t e s t o f r e a s o n a b l e n e s s a n d c o n t e x t , t he p o w e r s o f R e v i s i o n a l C I T w o u l d b e r e n d e r e d i n v i n c i b l e a n d a l m o s t e v e r y as s e s s m e n t o r d e r c a n b e p o s s i b l y f r u s t r a t e d . A n u a n c e d u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f E x p l a n a t i o n s u g g e s t s t h a t i n a d e q u a c y i n i n q u i r y o u g h t t o b e o f c a r d i n a l n a t u r e t o i g n i t e t h e p o t e n t p o w e r s o f r e v i e w . ” 14. In that case one of the issue involved was business advance ment expense and the Ld. PC IT had set aside the order of the AO under Sect ion 263 of the Act. It was held that only in a ver y gross case of inadequacy in en quiry or where the enquiry is per se mandated on the basis of rec ord before the AO and such enquiry was not conducted; the revisional power can be exercised to invalidate the action of the AO. In the present case, the AO had made the e nquiry, applied his mind and ca me to the conclusion that no disallowance under Section 37 of the Act was called for. The Ld. PCIT had not brought anything adverse on record to substantiate her allegation that the claim of t he assesse was liable to be disallowed under Section 37 of the Act. The Ld. PCIT has also not brought out any i nadequacy in the enquiry as conducted b y the AO in the cours e of assess ment proceeding rather the entire foundation of the order u/s 263 of the Act is found to be based on change of opinion. As per the provision of Section 263 of the Act, the Ld. P C IT is e mpowe red to conduct further enquiry as dee med necessar y, but no such enquiry was conducted to prove that the claim of the assessee was not ad missible. The Ld. PCI T has only exa mined the d etails and evidences filed before the AO in the course of assess ment and on that basis she had a different opinion about the admissibility of ITA No. 328/Ahd/2023 [HBC Lifesciences Private Limited vs.Pr.CIT] A.Y. 2018-19 - 12 – the clai m. The powers under Section 263 of the Act cannot be exercised only on the basis of change of opinion. It had to be first established that order was er roneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and, this condition is not found fulfilled in this case. 15. In view of the above facts, we are of the considered opinion that the present or der of the Ld. PCI T is not tenable in law as the foundation to exercise the revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act is missing in the present case. Therefore , the order of the PCIT passed u/s 263 of the Act is q uashed and set aside. 16. In the result, appeal preferred b y the assessee is allowed. This Order pronounced on 05/07/2024 Sd/- Sd/- (SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE) (NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 05/07/2024 S. K. SINHA True Copy आदेश आदेश आदेश आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषतकᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयुᲦ / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयुᲦ (अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाडᭅ फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसारआदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उप उपउप उप/सहायक पंजीकार सहायक पंजीकारसहायक पंजीकार सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरणआयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद अहमदाबादअहमदाबाद अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad