AJAY KUMAR KHURANA,NEW DELHI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-20, NEW DELHI

ITA 2666/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2025AY 2015-16Bench: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner (PCIT) erred in assuming revisional jurisdiction under Section 263. The PCIT's dissatisfaction with the degree of inquiry by the AO was not sufficient to deem the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue, especially when the AO had made some inquiries and accepted the assessee's claim based on available material.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed Long-Term Capital Gain (LTCG) as exempt income. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment based on information suggesting penny stock trading and non-genuine transactions. However, after reviewing documents and explanations provided by the assessee, the AO accepted the LTCG claim without additions.

What were the issues?

Whether the PCIT correctly exercised revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 when the AO had made some inquiries and accepted the assessee's claim, and whether the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 147,Section 148,Section 10(38)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI “A” BENCH: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA & SHRI VIMAL KUMAR

For Appellant: Adv. Shri Sharad Agarwal, Adv. &, Shri Dipanshu Agarwal, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT DR
Hearing: 07.05.2025Pronounced: 14.05.2025

PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, AM : The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the assessee seeking to assail the First Appellate order dated 30.03.2024 passed by Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-20 [“Pr. CIT”] u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising from the assessment order dated 23.03.2022 passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act pertaining to assessment year 2015-16 was sought to be set aside for denovo assessment in terms of supervisory juri iction.

2.

The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. “That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-20 ['Ld. PCIT"] has erred in init

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.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

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

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →