NARINDER SINGH, CHANDIGARH,CHANDIGARH vs. THE PCIT-1 CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that once an assessment has attained finality through the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, it cannot be disturbed under Section 263. The settlement under the scheme conclusively settles disputes and prevents subsequent reopening.
What were the facts?
The assessee's income was assessed by the AO, who doubted purchases and made an addition. Subsequently, the Pr. CIT initiated revision proceedings under Section 263, considering the entire turnover as unexplained income. However, the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme before the revision notice was issued.
What were the issues?
Whether a revisionary order under Section 263 can be passed when the assessment has been finalized under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Whether the settlement under the scheme bars subsequent revisionary proceedings.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 263,Section 143(3),Section 144B,Section 69A,Section 115BBE
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH
Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM & HON’BLE SHRI RAJESH DAMODARLAL SHARMA, JM
Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)
By way of this appeal, the assessee assails invocation of revisionary juri iction u/s 263 by Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh-1 (Pr. CIT) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2021-22 vide impugned order dated 08.03.2025 proposing revision of an assessment as framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 27.12.2022. Having heard rival submissions, the appeal is disposed-off as under. The registry has noted delay of 69 days in the appeal
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 →- Jharkhand Contractors Association Thro Its President- Pramod Kumar vs. Bharat Coking Coal LTD. Thro Its Chairman Cum Managing DirectorJharkhand · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Isc Processors Private Limited vs. Superintendent,Range-Iv, Burrabazar Div, CGST And Cx, Kolkata (N) Commissionerate And AnrCalcutta · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Raashi Constructions vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial TaxesKarnataka · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Bidasaria Fenster Solutions vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 13 Oct 2026
- Amit Agency vs. Commissioner, CGST And CxPatna · 13 Oct 2026