AMAN HOLDINGS PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. PR.CIT - 1, DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was void ab initio due to want of jurisdiction as there was no valid order under Section 127 of the Act transferring jurisdiction. Consequently, the revision proceedings initiated under Section 263 were also quashed.
What were the facts?
The assessee's assessment order was passed by an Assessing Officer (AO) who allegedly lacked jurisdiction. The Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (PCIT) initiated revision proceedings under Section 263 against this assessment order. The assessee contended that the AO's jurisdiction was not validly transferred.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessment order was void due to lack of valid jurisdiction, and if so, whether the subsequent revision order under Section 263 is also bad in law.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(4)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT5,834 citing229 ITR 383 · 1998 · SC
- DCIT v. Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology86 citing151 Taxmann.com 434 · 2023 · SC
- Hospitality LLP v. CIT, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 715544 citing405 ITR 296 · 2018 · HC
- Skandia Insurance Company Limited v. Kokilaben Chandravadan5 citing2 SCC 654 · 1987
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘F’: NEW DELHI
PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of ld. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-1 [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. PCIT (A)] dated 31.03.2021 for Assessment Year 2015-16 passed under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) raising following grounds of appeal :- “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order dated 31.03.2021 passed by the Pr.CIT Central I, Delhi ("Ld. Pr.CIT") the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("Act") cancelling the order dated 12.12.2017 passed u/s.143(3) by the ITO Ward 2(3), Delhi ("Ld. AO") and 2 directing the Ld. AO for a proposed addition uls.56(2)(viia) is void ab initio due to want of juri iction and is liabl
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 263
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Vimal Harilal Baldania, Gandhidham vs The ITO Ward 2, GandhidhamITA 770/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Giri Paints vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 15 Oct 2026
- Rahul Radheshyam Chauhan vs. Union Of INDIA Thru The Sec. Ministry Of Law And Justice And OrsBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- S.Murugesan vs. The Deputy Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Annai Garden vs. The Commercial Tax Officer / The State Tax OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Yadeshwar Mallekedi vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 15 Oct 2026