SHRI RAJESH JAGANNATH PUROHIT,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-6, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1401/AHD/2018Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 August 2026AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The PCIT had held the Assessing Officer's order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. During the hearing, the assessee sought permission to withdraw the appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the PCIT's order under Section 263 was justified, and whether the Assessing Officer's assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The assessee ultimately chose not to pursue these issues.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

For Appellant: Shri Kishor Goyal, A.R
For Respondent: Shri R.V.Aroon Prasaad, CIT-DR
Hearing: 04.08.2026Pronounced: 19.08.2026

PER SANJAY KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

- This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 28.03.2018 passed by the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax – 6, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld. CIT (A)’ in short), under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ in short) for Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of Appeal:- “1. The learned Pr. C.I.T. has erred in passing an order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act on the ground that order passed by the A.O. for A.Y. 2013-14 on 26-02-2016 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue which is totally incorrect on the basis of facts and circumstances of the case. It is submitted that the order passed by the learned A.O. is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. It is submitted that the same be held so now and he incorrect and illegal order passed by Pr. C.I.T. be quashed and set aside.

2.

The learned Pr. C.I.T. has erred in mentioning and accepting that Assessment Order was passed without making proper inquiry. It is submitted that the learned A.O. has made full and complete inquiry; which according to him while passing the order; was proper. The learned Pr. C I.T. cannot sit on the judgement of A.O. with regard to - 2– what was full inquiry or what was proper inquiry. Hon'ble Pr. C.I.T. has presumed that A.O. has not obtained confirmation from depositors without any evidence or basis. It is submitted that the order passed on presumptions and doubts cannot be considered as proper order for setting aside the order and invoking provision of section 263. It is submitted that the same be held now.

3.

The learned Pr. C.I.T. himself has doubted on one side about genuineness of confirmations from various depositors as mentioned in the order u/s 263 on oneside and on another side has doubted about non examination of applicability of section 269SS. Thus Pr. C.I.T. himself is not sure whether the order is erroneous for want of examination u/s 68 or for want of applicability of section 269SS. This proves that Pr. CIT. has passed the order without appreciation the facts and has set aside the order incorrectly holding that order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In view of such clear contradiction it is submitted that the order of Pr. C.I.T. u/s 263 be set aside.

4.

The order passed by the learned Pr. C.I.T.is bad in law and contrary to the provisions of law and facts. It is submitted that the same be held so now.

5.

Your appellant craves leave to add, alter and/or to amend all or any of the grounds before the final hearing.”

3.

In the during the hearing, learned A.R. sought permission to withdraw the present Appeal. A letter has also been filed to the effect that the Assessee does not want to pursue the present Appeal.

4.

The Appeal of the Assessee is, therefore, dismissed as withdrawn. The order pronounced on 19.08.2026. (NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 19.08.2026 DS, PS - 3–

आदेश की "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ"/The Appellant

2.

""थ"/The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु"/ Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु" (अपील) /The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय "ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद/ DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad गाड" फाईल /Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.

More judgments on Section 263

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →