AMIT GHORAWAT,GUWAHATI vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUWAHATI-1

PDF · subscribers
ITA 40/GTY/2021Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati23 May 2023AY 2015-164 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not receive a fair opportunity to present documents before the PCIT. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the PCIT's order and restored the matter back to the PCIT for fresh adjudication, with a direction to provide a proper opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal pertains to an order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (PCIT) under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. The PCIT had revised the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 143(3). The assessee contended that the PCIT passed the order ex-parte without considering their submissions and documents.

What were the issues?

Whether the PCIT erred in passing a revisionary order under Section 263 without considering the assessee's submissions and providing a fair opportunity of hearing. Whether the original assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 143(3),Section 80-IE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, GUWAHATI BENCH AT KOLKATA

Before: DR. MANISH BORAD & SRI SONJOY SARMA

order

: May 23rd, 2023 ORDER

Per Manish Borad, Accountant Member:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year (in short “AY”) 2015-16 is directed against the I.T.A. No.: 40/GTY/2021 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Amit Ghorawat. order passed u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the “Act”) by ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax, Guwahati-1, Guwahati [in short ld. “Pr. CIT”] dated 28.03.2021 arising out of the assessment order framed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 27.06.2017.

2.

The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds: “1. that on the fact and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. PCIT, Guwahati-1 erred in law as well in fact by passing the order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) which is contrary to the material on record and provisions of the Act. 2. that on the fact and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. PCIT, Guwahati-1 erred in holding that learned Assessing Officer (AO) passed the order under section 143(3) of the Act for the impugned assessment year 2015-16 without making required enquiries/investigations. 3. that on the fact and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. PCIT, Guwahati-1 has erred in deciding the case ex-parte in violation of the principles of natural justice. 4. that on the fact and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. PCIT, Guwahati-1 has erred in holding that deduction under section 80-IE has been wrongly allowed without considering the fact. 5. that the Ld. PCIT, Guwahati-1 has erred in law as well as in fact by invoking section 263 for admissibility of deduction under section 80-IE whereas the same was not a reason for scrutiny under section 143(3) as the same was limited scrutiny. 6. that on the fact and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. PCIT, Guwahati-1 has erred by not providing reasonable opportunity of being heard. 7. that the Ld. PCIT, Guwahati-1 has erred in law as well as in fact by not considering the papers and documents in record.

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →