VENTURA SECURITIES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PCIT-4 , MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3794/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 December 2025AY 2020-2117 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the revision order passed by the PCIT under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was not sustainable. The Tribunal found that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The reasoning was that the AO had applied his mind to the material available on record and had made necessary inquiries before passing the assessment order. The PCIT, in its revision order, had not pointed out any specific material that was ignored by the AO or any specific inquiry that was not conducted. The Tribunal concluded that the PCIT had merely substituted its own view for that of the AO, which is not permissible under Section 263. Therefore, the revision order was quashed, and the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed. The operative direction was the deletion of the additions made pursuant to the revision order.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Ventura Securities Limited, has filed an appeal against the revision order dated 26.03.2025 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (PCIT), Mumbai-4. This revision order was passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, challenging the assessment order dated 26.09.2022. The assessment order was passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Act for the Assessment Year 2020-21. The appeal is before the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai Bench.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the revision order passed by the PCIT under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is valid and justified, considering the assessee's contention that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The assessee argues that the Assessing Officer (AO) had applied his mind to the relevant facts and material on record before passing the assessment order, and therefore, the PCIT erred in initiating revision proceedings. The revenue contends that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue because the AO failed to conduct a proper inquiry and make necessary investigations into certain aspects of the assessee's return of income, leading to an incorrect assessment. The revenue relies on the principles laid down in various judicial pronouncements to support its claim that the PCIT has the power to revise orders that are not in accordance with the law.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 143(3),Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, AR
For Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, (CIT-DR)
Hearing: 28.10.2025Pronounced: 08.12.2025

PER PRABHASH SHANKAR [A.Μ.] :- The present appeal preferred by the assessee Company emanates from the Revision order dated 26.03.2025 passed u/s 263 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 by the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, PCIT, Mumbai-4 [hereinafter referred to as “PCIT"] pertaining to assessment order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] dated 26.09.2022 for the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2020-21.

More judgments on Section 263

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →