ATLANTIC VISTA REAL ESTATE PVT LTD,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), NAGPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 474/NAG/2026Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur07 September 2026AY 2019-2018 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 revisionary authority cannot set aside an assessment order under Section 263 without conducting its own independent inquiry if it finds the AO's inquiry to be insufficient. The AO had examined the issue of credits from group entities and found them to be genuine based on documentary evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged a revision order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, arguing that the Assessing Officer (AO) had made sufficient inquiries during the assessment. The revisionary authority held the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue without conducting further independent inquiries.

What were the issues?

Whether the Principal Commissioner (PCIT) can revise an assessment order under Section 263 without conducting independent inquiries when the Assessing Officer (AO) has already made inquiries and accepted the assessee's submissions?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 147,Section 148A,Section 148,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 132,Section 133A,Section 56(2)(vii)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “DB” BENCH, NAGPUR

Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI KHETTRA MOHAN ROY

Hearing: 19.06.2026Pronounced: 07.09.2026

P a g e | 1 ITA No. 474/Nag/2026 Atlantic Vista Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2019-20) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “DB” BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI KHETTRA MOHAN ROY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.474/Nag/2026 (Assessment Year: 2019-20)

Atlantic Vista Real Estate Vs. The Pr. CIT(Central) Private Limited, AyakarBhavan, Civil Line 202, Midas Heights, Telangkhedi Road, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur Nagpur – 440001 440010 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AAHCA0873F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Sh. Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. Respondent by : Sh. Pankaj Kumar, CIT, DR

Date of Hearing 19.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement 07.09.2026

O R D E R PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:

This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 31.03.2026 of the Ld. PCIT(Central), Nagpur (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ‘Revisionary Authority’) in DIN & Order No: ITBA/REV/F/REV5/2025-26/1087853738(1) arising out of the assessment order dated 28.09.2023 u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act,

P a g e | 2 ITA No. 474/Nag/2026 Atlantic Vista Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2019-20) 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed by ACIT/DCIT, CC-2(2), Nagpur, for AY: 2019-20.

2.

On hearing both sides we find that assessee has challenged the impugned order u/s 263 of the Act primarily alleging that all the relevant inquiries were made by the AO at the time of inquiry and assesse had filed detailed response to the queries raised while the ld. Revisionary Authority has examined the issues afresh and without conducting any further inquiry or pointing out any substantive reason has held the assessment order to be erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Ld. Counsel has also submitted that in fact the assessment were completed u/s 147 of the Act and were based on approval of the draft assessment orders from Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Range-2 and without finding the approval to be erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue the assessment order could not have been held so independently and reliance in this regard has been placed on certain judicial decisions.

3.

It is countered by the ld. DR by submitting that merely raising of query and submissions filed do not satisfy the intent of law which requires AO to make inquiries about the genuineness of claims. It was submitted by ld. DR that approval granted does not form part of the assessment and on

P a g e | 3 ITA No. 474/Nag/2026 Atlantic Vista Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2019-20) the basis of approval alone the assessment order does not become sacrosanct so as to fall outside purview of Section 263 of the Act. Reliance was placed on Hon’ble Supreme Court Decision in T.N Civil Supplies Corp. Ltd versus CIT [2003] 129 Taxman 69 (SC). In support of contentions supporting the findings of ld. PCIT, ld. DR has filed written submissions and a paper book citing numerous judicial decisions with request to reproduce the same in order for institutional memory and to help perusal of matter further for filing appeal, if needed. However, we have considered the submissions dated 07.08.2026 and 21.08.2026 but their reproduction at length is not necessary as they are primarily reproductions of facts and reasoning of ld. PCIT, which we were well appraised by ld. DR at time of hearing itself.

4.

We have taken into consideration the rival contentions and we find from the material on record that consequent to search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act in Anil Deshmukh group of cases and during the course of search and survey action the assessee’s case was covered u/s 133A of the Act. Thereupon information was placed on insight portal for which assesse was issued notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act and thereupon order u/s 148A(d) was passed and consequently notice u/s 148was passed which became basis of the impugned order. The assessment order reflects

P a g e | 4 ITA No. 474/Nag/2026 Atlantic Vista Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2019-20) that notices u/s 143(2) and u/s 142(1) were issued and various dates in response to which assesse had filed various evidences and based upon the same AO had made an addition by way of disallowance on account of two vehicles which were being for personal purpose and not business purposes.

5.

When we look at the paper book we find that assesse has provided copy of notice issued u/s 148 of the Act at page no. 1 copy of which order u/s 148A(d) of the Act at page No.2-3. Copy of notice issued u/s 143(2)(b) of the Act at page No. 4-7 and copy of passing order u/s 143(2) of the Act at page No. 8-50.

6.

After appreciating the material on record we find that during assessment proceedings the issue of credits from group entities was specifically examined by the Assessing Officer and all relevant and vital documentary evidences including financials of group entities having sufficient share capital, reserves and surplus was placed before AO and relying the same the AO has taken one possible view that the transaction was genuine. We find that the assessee’s elaborate reply in response to notice u/s 143(2) of the Act available at page No. 8-50 of the paper book indicates that financial statement of M/s Concrete Enterprises showing closing share capital reserves and surplus as on 31.03.2019 of Rs.314.28 lakhs were there before AO. Similar, evidences were there with regard to M/s Swordfish Ventures Pvt. Ltd. on considering the submissions and

P a g e | 5 ITA No. 474/Nag/2026 Atlantic Vista Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2019-20) evidences of the assesse and the contentions of ld. PCIT we find that primarily ld. PCIT had drawn conclusion of the assessment order being erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue is that investigation wing report suggested transactions were suspicious and the group entities were involved in the transaction. We are of the considered view when assessing officer had opportunity to examine the issue in group companies together then AO’s comprehensive view of the issue cannot be alleged to be erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue as AO having examined the transactions of the group entities may have considered it to be genuine inter group transactions for the benefit of the group as a whole. The lack of income of any entity of the group in itself cannot be a basis to doubt its creditworthiness and especially at the stage of proceedings u/s 263 of the Act without otherwise establishing that the opinion formed by the AO was not sustainable in law.

6.1 In fact our attention was drawn to the fact that there was repayment of Rs. 30 lacs to M/s Concrete Enterprises which is not doubted by ld. PCIT and in case of M/s Swordfish Ventures Pvt. Ltd., there was opening balance of Rs. 13,90, 000/- and closing balance of Rs. 5,45,000/-. All amounts were repaid during the year and accepted by the department.

7.

Appreciating the material on record we find that ld. PCIT has not made any independent inquiry of his own to bring on record any further facts or evidences to show that the creditworthiness of the group entities

P a g e | 6 ITA No. 474/Nag/2026 Atlantic Vista Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2019-20) was not sustainable. No query whatsoever as was independently raised from any entity. The Ld. PCIT himself records that the Ld. AO examined the Appellant's replies and details of the impugned transaction, but considers such enquiry to be insufficient and not exhaustive, and without adding further to the issue by his own enquiry recorded that the conclusion of acceptance of transaction as genuine was not sustainable in law. Therefore, if the ld. PCIT intended to hold that there is any error in the order of the Assessing Officer, which can be corrected by further enquiry then ld. PCIT should give a categorical finding by his own enquiries and investigations, howsoever, minimal be that. Specially, why assesse’s response to notice issued u/s 143(2) of the Act at page No. 8- should have been rejected altogether.

8.

Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited vide ITA No.705/2017 order dated 05.09.2017 has held that for the purpose of exercising jurisdiction u./s. 263 of the Act, the conclusion that the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue has to be preceded by some minimal inquiry. If the PCIT is of the view that the AO did not undertake any inquiry, it becomes incumbent on the PCIT to conduct such inquiry. If he does not conduct such basic exercise then the PCIT is not justified in

P a g e | 7 ITA No. 474/Nag/2026 Atlantic Vista Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2019-20) setting aside the order u/s. 263 of the Act. Reliance for this can also be placed on the Hon’ble Delhi High Court decision in ITO Vs. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Del), whereby the Hon’ble High Court held as under :

“16. Thus, in cases of wrong opinion or finding on merits, the CIT has to come to the conclusion and himself decide that the order is erroneous, by conducting necessary enquiry, if required and necessary, before the order under section 263 is passed. In such cases, the order of the Assessing Officer will be erroneous because the order passed is not sustainable in law and the said finding must be recorded. CIT cannot remand the matter to the Assessing Officer to decide whether the findings recorded are erroneous. In cases where there is inadequate enquiry but not lack of enquiry, again the CIT must give and record a finding that the order/inquiry made is erroneous. This can happen if an enquiry and verification is conducted by the CIT and he is able to establish and show the error or mistake made by the Assessing Officer, making the order unsustainable in Law. In some cases possibly though rarely, the CIT can also show and establish that the facts on record or inferences drawn from facts on record per se justified and mandated further enquiry or investigation but the Assessing Officer had erroneously not undertaken the same. However, the said finding must be clear, unambiguous and not debatable. The matter cannot be remitted for a fresh decision to the Assessing Officer to conduct further enquiries without a finding that the order is erroneous. Finding that the order

P a g e | 8 ITA No. 474/Nag/2026 Atlantic Vista Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2019-20) is erroneous is a condition or requirement which must be satisfied for exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. In such matters, to remand the matter/issue to the Assessing Officer would imply and mean the CIT has not examined and decided whether or not the order is erroneous but has directed the Assessing Officer to decide the aspect/question.” 9. Now, the Ld. PCIT, while exercising powers under section 263, has sought to set aside the assessment for ‘necessary enquiry’ of the same material that was already on record, merely on the premise that such enquiry on creditworthiness was required. Thus actually directing ld. AO to revisit the view taken earlier which is not permissible under the law. In this regard, we are of considered view that it is a settled position of law that the Ld. PCIT cannot invoke revisionary provision just because he has different opinion in respect of manner of enquiry and the conclusion drawn from the same sets of facts placed before the Ld. AO. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (243 ITR 83) where Hon’ble Apex Court has held that where the AO has adopted one of the possible courses permissible in law, resulting in a loss of revenue, such order cannot be treated as "erroneous" merely because the Commissioner does not agree with that view, unless the view taken by the AO is unsustainable in law.In the case in hand as we

P a g e | 9 ITA No. 474/Nag/2026 Atlantic Vista Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2019-20) appreciate the impugned order and findings of ld. PCIT, we find no word of discussion to show how the evidences filed by the assessee were not relevant or inadmissible in law to arrive at conclusion that transaction was genuine.

10.

Addressing contention of ld. DR that assessment order is silent on enquires and resultant findings, we are of considered that on its own this cannot lead to inference that no enquiry was made. In this regard we are of considered view that the sufficiency or absence of AO's enquiry must be ascertained from the assessment records as a whole, not merely from the written order.

11.

Then settled legal position is that the existence and adequacy of enquiry must be determined from the entire assessment record and surrounding circumstances, and not solely from the face of the assessment order.Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon’bleDelhi High Court in case of CIT v Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del) held as:

"12. We have considered the rival submissions of the counsel on the other side and have gone through the records. The first issue that arises for our consideration is about the exercise of power by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 of the Income-tax

P a g e | 10 ITA No. 474/Nag/2026 Atlantic Vista Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2019-20) Act. As noted above, the submission of learned counsel for the revenue was that while passing the assessment order, the Assessing Officer did not consider this aspect specifically whether the expenditure in question was revenue or capital expenditure. This argument predicates on the assessment order which apparently does not give any reasons while allowing the entire expenditure as revenue expenditure. However, that by itself would not be indicative of the fact that the Assessing Officer had not applied his mind on the issue. There are judgments galore laying down the principle that the Assessing Officer in the assessment order is not required to give detailed reason in respect of each and every item of deduction, etc. Therefore, one has to see from the record as to whether there was application of mind before allowing the expenditure in question as revenue expenditure. Learned counsel for the assessee is right in his submission that one has to keep in mind the distinction between "lack of inquiry" and "inadequate inquiry". If there was any inquiry, even inadequate, that would not by itself, give occasion to the Commissioner to pass orders under section 263 of the Act, merely because he has different opinion in the matter.” 12. Similarly Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Vikas Polymers[2012] 341 ITR 537 (Delhi) held that:

"18.......This is for the reason that if a query is raised during the course of scrutiny by the Assessing Officer, which was answered to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer, but neither the query nor the answer were reflected in the assessment order, this would not by

P a g e | 11 ITA No. 474/Nag/2026 Atlantic Vista Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2019-20) itself lead to the conclusion that the order of the Assessing Officer called for interference and revision." 13. It appears that the fact which may have had actual bearing on mind of ld. PCIT was that the case of assesse were part of search in a group and assesse had received money from group companies in the form of circulation of funds within company while these companies were actually alleged to be shell companies by investigation wing and so also there were issues about certain expenditures being not on actual basis or for benefit of directors and their family members. However, each case had to be examined individually on its own facts by the ld. AO, and taking a gross view, the submissions, explanations and evidences of assesse could not have been discarded on suspicion or scale of human probability, as done by ld. PCIT, in the impugned order. What is alleged to be lack of enquiry is on foundation that as it was case reopening on material found in search of group, the submissions, explanations and evidences of assesse should not have been accepted at all, as the department had found the group to be indulging in some financial irregularities in regard to expenditures or sourcing its funds. However, the burden on AO, was to rebut the submissions, explanations and evidences of assesse, by some evidences. Had AO simply on basis of suspicion and surmises rejected submissions,

P a g e | 12 ITA No. 474/Nag/2026 Atlantic Vista Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2019-20) explanations and evidences of assesse, to make additions or disallowances, as indicated by ld. PCIT, the same would not have sustain the rigours of law, where submissions, explanations and evidences of assesse, cannot be rejected merely on bald and uncorroborated allegations of facts. We are of the considered view when assessing officer had opportunity to examine the issue in group companies together then AO’s comprehensive view of the issue cannot be alleged to be erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue as AO having examined the transactions of the group entities may have considered it to be genuine inter group transactions for the benefit of the group as a whole. The lack of income of any entity of the group in itself cannot be a basis to doubt its creditworthiness and especially at the stage of proceedings u/s 263 of the Act without otherwise establishing that the opinion formed by the AO was not sustainable in law. Thus conclusion of ld. PCIT, to hold the assessment order to be erroneous so far prejudicial for the revenue cannot be sustained by us. On the contrary, the corresponding grounds raised by the assesse deserves to be sustained.

14.

Then, we find substance in the contention of ld. Counsel that when assesse had responded to the queries of AO and AO has draft assessment order along with assessment records for approval and approval has been

P a g e | 13 ITA No. 474/Nag/2026 Atlantic Vista Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2019-20) granted by competent authority and that approval forms part of the assessment record then without examining and holding the approval to be outcome of any erroneous findings or conclusions, the assessment order cannot be held to be erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in PCIT versus Prabhakar Developer (P) Ltd. (2024) 162 taxmann.com 48 (Mad) as relied by Delhi Bench in Devendra Kumar Gupta versus PCIT, Central, Gurugaon vide ITA No. 1890 to 1893/Del/2014 order dated 30.08.2024 where in Pune Bench decision in the case of RamamoorthyVasudevan versus PCIT vide ITA No. 967 and 968/Pune/2016 was relied. Similar view is expressed in Shalimar Corp. Ltd. Versus PCIT, Central-3, New Delhi ITA 1546 and 1548/Del/2025 order dated 27.02.2026 (Delhi Tribunal), Manohar and Filament Pvt. Ltd versus PCIT. Central-3, Delhi ITA 2645/Del/2025 order dated 31.12.2025. Similar view is expressed by Mumbai Tribunal in Shashi Kant DamodarKhandelwal and others versus PCIT, Central-1, Mumbai vide ITA 8772/Mum/2025 and others order dated 24.04.2026, Patna Bench in case of GyanInfrabuild Private Ltd. Versus PCIT, Central, Patna, ITA 175 to 178/Pat/2023 order dated 13.05.2024. As also a similar has been the view of Co-

P a g e | 14 ITA No. 474/Nag/2026 Atlantic Vista Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2019-20) ordinate Bench at Nagpur, in case of Sufalam Infra Project Ltd. Versus PCIT, Central, Nagpur ITA 97/Nag/2019 order dated 29/07/2024and by this Bench, itself, in Kumar Builders versus PCIT, Central, Nagpur

ITA 450/Nag/2026 order dated 12.06.2026

15.

The decision of ld. DR has relied in case of T.N Civil Suplies Corp. Ltd. Case (supra) we find that was a case where assessment was completed u/s 144B of the Act, and in that case there is actually no need for assessing officer and the authority issuing direction, to have their respective, reasoning for assessment and directions issued u/s 144A of the Act, as in case of search assessments or re-opening assessments concluded with approval of competent authority.

16.

We have considered rival contentions as aforesaid and reached a conclusion, however, for completeness we like to observe that ld. DR has placed voluminous legal paper book where he has referred the following judgments:

i. Hon 'ble ITAT, Nagpur in the case of Abhishek NagarmalJangid Vs. Pr. CIT (Central), NagpurITA No. 255/NAG/2025 dated 18.05.2026 ii. Hon'ble ITAT, Nagpur in the case of Rajesh KrushnaraoChikte, Nagpur VS. PCIT-1, Nagpur, ITA No. 335/NAG/2025 dated 20.05.2026 iii. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, [2000| 243 ITR 83 (SC) iv. Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. Commissioner of Income-tax, [1968] 67 ITR 84 (SC) [01- 05-1967] v. Deniel Merchants P. Ltd. Vs Income Tax Officer Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).23976/2017 vi. Vedanta Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, [2021]124 taxmann.com 435 (Bombay)

P a g e | 15 ITA No. 474/Nag/2026 Atlantic Vista Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2019-20) vii. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax V. Shri Braham Dev Gupta, ITA 907/2017, 2018:DHC:4397-DB viii. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Infosys TechnologiesLtd., 2012] 341 ITR 293 (Karnataka) ix. Gee Vee Enterprises v. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, [1975| 99 ITR 375 (Delhi)[07-10-1974] x. Hon'ble Delhi ITAT in the case of Ankush Garg v. C.I.T., Rohtak, ITA No. 2287 & 2288/Del/2015 dated21.05.2019 xi. Hon'ble Delhi ITAT in the case of Ramesh Kumar v. ITO, Ward- 3, Hisar, ITA No. 1982/Del/2018 dated25.01.2019 xii. Hon'ble Delhi ITAT in the case of Pooja Gupta v. Pr. CIT, New Delhi, ITA No. 4057/Del/2018 dated31.01.2019 xiii. Hon'ble Delhi ITAT in the case of Bhushan Steel Ltd. v. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-13, New Delhi., I.T.A.No. 1641/Del/2014 dated 30.03.2015 xiv. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Central)-1 v. NRA Iron & Steel (P.) Ltd., [2019] 103 taxmann.com 48 (SC) xv. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Durga Prasad More, [1971| 82 ITR 540 (SC)[26-08- 1971] xvi. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -6, New Delhi V. NDR Promoters Pvt. Ltd., ITA 49/2018, 2019:DHC:348 xvii. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Nova Promoters &Finlease (P) Ltd., [2012] 342 ITR 169 (Delhi) xviii. SajanDass& Sons v. Commissioner of Income-tax, [2003] 264 ITR 435 (Delhi) xix. Ram Lal Agarwal v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Meerut [2006] 280 ITR 547 (Allahabad) xx. Hon'ble Delhi ITAT in the case of Shri Hersh W. Chadha v. DDIT, Circle-1(1) I.T.A.Nos.3088 to 3098 &3107/Del/2005 dated 31.12.2010 xxi. T.N. Civil Supplies Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, [2003 260 ITR 82 (SC) xii. NIIT Ltd. Vs. Union of India &Ors.,WP (C) No. 4722/2008, (2009:DHC:5377-DB) xxiii. Hon 'ble Delhi ITAT in the case of Kapil Mehta Vs. Pr. CIT(Central), Delhi-3, ITA No.533/Del/2021 dated11.10.2021 xxiv. Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. Vs. CIT, [2022] 448 ITR 518 (SC) [12-10-2022] xxv. Dinesh Babulal Thakkar v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle 2(2), Ahmedabad, [2010] 39SOT 332 (Ahmedabad - ITAT)[31-03-2010] xxvi. K. Ramasamy v. Commissioner of Income-tax, [2003] 261 ITR 358 (Madras) xxvii. Rajmandır Estates (P.) Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Kolkata-III, Kolkata, [2016] 386 ITR 162 (Calcutta)

P a g e | 16 ITA No. 474/Nag/2026 Atlantic Vista Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2019-20) xxviii. SubhlakshmiVanijya (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax-l, Kolkata, 2015] 155 ITD 171 (Kolkata - Trib.) xxix. Sunil Siddharthbhai v. Commissioner of Income-tax, [1985] 156 ITR 509 (SC)

17.

However, based on our discussion, we find that what all the decisions relied by ld. DR are distinguishable on facts and in fact in regard to basic principle for assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 for which we have relied the aforesaid decisions in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (supra) there can be no denial that the principles holds good and therefore, these judgments do not help the case of ld. DR. However, as he has also referred the two cases of Coordinate Bench of Nagpur in Abhishek Nagarmal Jangid (supra) and Rajesh Krushnarao Chikte (supra) we distinguish them on facts as in case of Abhishek Nagarmal Jangid (supra) the Coordinate Bench had examined the issue that AO had accepted additional income offered by assesse which was not disclosed in the regular books of account and thus, the error was found in accepting only 8% of such unrecorded sales without conducting proper verification. Similarly, in case of Rajesh Krushnarao Chikte (supra) the Bench was dealing with an issue where AO had failed to examined applicability of provision of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act in respect of purchase of immovable property by the assesse. Thus, in peculiar facts the Coordinate Bench in these two decisions had sustained the orders of ld. PCIT but in the case

P a g e | 17 ITA No. 474/Nag/2026 Atlantic Vista Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2019-20) before us we have dealt aforesaid we find that primarily on the basis of relevant queries being raised and response of the assesse we have drawn conclusion that allegation of inadequate, insufficient or lack of inquiry on the issues for which ld. PCIT had merely caused suspicion without any conclusive determination of his own on the basis of any further inquiry, to hold that the assessment orders are erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue.

18.

As a consequence of aforesaid discussion the grounds in appeal are sustained and impugned order deserves to be quashed. The appeals is accordingly allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 07.09.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (Khettra Mohan Roy) (Anubhav Sharma) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated 07.09.2026 Rohit, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT

P a g e | 18 ITA No. 474/Nag/2026 Atlantic Vista Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2019-20)

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

ITAT NAGPUR

More judgments on Section 263

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →