Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that the CIT was not justified in passing revisional order on two additional grounds which were not stated in the notice. Court also observed that the Office note appended to the assessment order clearly shows that the AO had taken all explanations and arguments of the assessee before allowing the deduction u/s 80IA. Accordingly the revision order is held to be bad in law. (AY. 2009-10)
CIT v. Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. (2018) 305 CTR 486 / 171 DTR 241 (Bom.)(HC)
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Notice referred only one ground-Final order on other grounds– Claim of deduction examined by the AO- CIT was not justified in substituting his view–Revision is held to be bad in law. [S. 80IA]