ORDER : BHARGAV D. KARIA, J. 1. This Tax Appeal is filed under section 260A of the Income Tax Act,1961 [‘the Act,1961’ for short] proposing the following questions of law arising out of the order dated 12.07.2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad [‘the Tribunal’ for short] in ITA No. 215/AHD/2022-for A.Y. 2017-2018. “(i) Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in setting aside the order u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act,1961 despite non verification of the claim in respect of the Capital Gain? (ii) Whether the decision of Appellate Tribunal is perverse on facts and in law in not upholding the Order u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 31.03.2022 which is based on wrong computation of the income by Assessing Officer under the head Capital Gain by treating the net capital gain of Rs. 2,02,85,196/- to be Long Term Capital Gain, ignoring the provisions of Section 50 of the Income Tax Act,1961?” 2. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (‘PCIT’ for short) issued notice under section 263 of the Act,1961 noticing from the return for A.Y. 2017-2018 filed by the assessee after the assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act, 1961 was finalized determining the income from the business and other sources at Rs. 53,38,05,487/- including the capital gain at Rs. 2,02,85,487/-. 3. Noticing that though the assessee had sold the depreciable assets i.e. building, residential flats forming part of the block assets “Building residential in the fixed assets” for a consideration of Rs. 3,45,76,499/- during the Financial Year 2016-17 relevant to Assessment Year 2017-18, it was observed by the PCIT that the computation of income for the year under consideration, the assessee had worked out short-term capital gain on sale of the depreciable assets at Rs. 2,96,48,487/- and after claiming set off of brought forward long-term capital loss of Rs. 93,63,291/-, the net taxable capital gain was shown at Rs. 2,02,85,196/-. 4. According to PCIT, the Assessing Officer while passing assessment order on 22.11.2019 while computing the total income for the year under consideration, had taken the above mentioned short-term capital gain of Rs. 2,02,85,196/- as long-term capital gain. Therefore, according to the PCIT, there was error in the assessment order by treating the short-term capital gain as long-term capital gain by the Assessing Officer. 5. 2,02,85,196/- as long-term capital gain. Therefore, according to the PCIT, there was error in the assessment order by treating the short-term capital gain as long-term capital gain by the Assessing Officer. 5. The assessee filed a reply to the notice issued by the PCIT stating that the Assessing Officer did not consider the short-term capital gain as long-term capital gain but the amount of Rs. 2,02,85,196/- offered by the assessee as short-term capital gain is charged at the tax rate applicable to the short-term capital gain and not long-term capital gain. It was also pointed out by the assessee that there is no loss to the Revenue and therefore, the assessment order though may be erroneous, it is not prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 6. The PCIT, however, passed the order under section 263 of the Act,1961 which was challenged by the assessee by filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after considering the facts of the case, allowed the appeal filed by the assessee observing as under: “6.2 It is clearly evident that the ld. PCIT has recorded no infirmity in the contentions made by the assessee before him that there was no error in the assessment order in allowing set off of brought forward Long Germ Capital Loss against Short Term Capital Gain returned u/s 50 of the Act since it was accordance with law. For that matter even the Ld. DR was unable to contradict the contention of the assessce that its claim was in accordance with law as interpreted by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court. 6.3 Besides the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has placed before us copies of the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Aditya Sales (supra) and Polestar Industries (supra) relied upon by the assessee in support of its contention that its claim of set off of brought forward long term capital loss against short term capital gain returned u/s 50 of the Act was in accordance with law. We have gone through the same and we agree with the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that it has been held in the said decisions that section 50 of the Act is a deeming fiction treating capital gains on sale of depreciable assets as short term capital gains irrespective of their period of holding which otherwise qualifies assets as long term/short term. Counsel for the assessee that it has been held in the said decisions that section 50 of the Act is a deeming fiction treating capital gains on sale of depreciable assets as short term capital gains irrespective of their period of holding which otherwise qualifies assets as long term/short term. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court has categorically held that the fiction created in the said section cannot be extended to deny benefit to which assets qualifying as long term are otherwise entitled on account of their said status. Besides copy of the decision of the Hon'ble apex court affirming this proposition of law in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs V.S. Dempo Company Ltd.(2016) 74 taxmann.com 15 (SC), was also placed before us, along with other decisions of High Courts and the ITAT holding so. 6.4 Surely therefore there is complete absence of finding of any error by the Ld. PCIT in the order of the AO with respect to the issue involved. Also the assessee has demonstrated before us its claim being in accordance with law, which has remained uncontroverted by the Ld. DR. Therefore we are in agreement with the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the AO had allowed the claim taking a plausible view on the issue and in such circumstances there is no scope for invocation of revisionary powers w/s 263 of the Act by the Ld.PCIT, since the finding of error is essential for invoking the said power and AO taking a plausible view on the matter, his order cannot be said to be erroneous so as to cause prejudice to the Revenue. The Hon’ble apex court has laid down that where AO takes a plausible view there cannot be said to be any error in his order so as to invoke revisionary powers u/s 263 of the Act in the case of Kwality Steels 395 ITR 1(SC). 6.5 For this reason alone, the order passed by the Id. PCIT needs to be set aside being not in accordance with the powers given to him under Section 263 of the Act, having been exercised without finding error in the order of the Assessing Officer. 7. We have noted that Id. PCIT has exercised his revisionary for the purpose of verifying the claim of the assessee. It is few that powers under Section 263 of the Act cannot be for verification purposes. 7. We have noted that Id. PCIT has exercised his revisionary for the purpose of verifying the claim of the assessee. It is few that powers under Section 263 of the Act cannot be for verification purposes. Section 263 of the Act gives special powers to Commissioners/PCITs to correct the errors in the orders of the Assessing Officer since the Revenue has no right of ° appeal against the order passed by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, this power clearly can be exercised only when there is an error noted in the order of the Assessing Officer. It cannot be exercised for - verification purposes dehors finding of any error. Our view is supported by the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Meerut Flour Mills (P) (Ltd. Vs CIT (2020) 420 ITR 216.” 7. Learned advocate Mr. Raval for the appellant tried to submit that the PCIT was justified in passing the impugned order while invoking the provision of section 263 of the Act,1961 as the Assessing Officer has treated short-term capital gain as long-term capital gain in the assessment order. He invited the attention of the Court to page 33 of the paper book in the computation of income made by the Assessing Officer which shows that “income from long-term capital gain”. It was therefore submitted that once the Assessing Officer has committed an error by not treating the long-term capital gain as short-term capital gain though declared by the assessee as a short-term capital gain, the order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 8. However, considering the findings arrived at by the Tribunal, we are of the opinion that though the Assessing Officer might have committed an error while computing the assessment order but in fact, the Tribunal has considered this aspect in detail and has held that there is no finding of any error by the PCIT in the order of the Assessing Officer with respect to the issue involved as the assessee claimed the set off of long-term capital loss while offering short-term capital gain in accordance with law which has remained un-controverted even by the departmental representative as well as learned counsel Mr.Raval appearing for the appellant. The Tribunal has therefore, rightly come to the conclusion that the PCIT would not have any jurisdiction to invoke the powers under section 263 of the Act,1961 since the findings of error is essential for invoking such power and Assessing Officer taking a plausible view in the matter, the assessment order cannot be said to be erroneous so as to cause prejudice to the Revenue. 9. Considering the reasons assigned by the Tribunal for allowing the appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order under section 263 of the Act, 1961, we do not find any infirmity in the same and accordingly, no question of law much less any substantial question of law can be said have arisen from the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, the Appeal is accordingly dismissed.