SANJAY VELJIBHAI SOJITRA,RAJKOT vs. ITO WD 3(1)(4), RAJKOT-AMRELI, RAJKOT
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the PCIT cannot invoke Section 263 merely on a change of opinion if the Assessing Officer has conducted inquiries and taken a plausible view. The assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was found unsustainable.
What were the facts?
The assessee's assessment was reopened based on information about accommodation entries related to Long-Term Capital Gain. The Assessing Officer accepted the assessee's explanation and completed the reassessment without additions. The PCIT invoked Section 263, holding the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.
What were the issues?
Whether the PCIT's revisionary order under Section 263 is valid when the Assessing Officer has already conducted inquiries and accepted the assessee's explanation, or if it amounts to a mere change of opinion.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 263,Section 147,Section 144B,Section 148,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 132
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot Bench, Rajkot
Before: Dr. BRR Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma
Per, Shri Sonjoy Sarma, JM: This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 23.03.2025 passed by the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Rajkot (“PCIT”) under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), whereby the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act dated 03.03.2023 was set aside with a direction to frame a fresh assessment order. Sanjay Veljibhai Sojitra
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual who
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 →- Tvl. Jeyarani Shopping Centre vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer -1/The Deputy Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 14 Oct 2026
- Rohan Tanna vs. Directorate General Of Goods And Services Tax IntelligenceChhattisgarh · 14 Oct 2026
- Dipak Saikia vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Saraswati Phukan vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Sanjay Maheshwari vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026