SHAKAMBARI INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,RANCHI vs. ACIT/DCIT, CEN CIR-1, RANCHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 236/RAN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi30 July 2026AY 2019-202012 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 PCIT cannot use Section 263 powers for mere reverification of evidence already examined by the AO. The AO had considered the issue and formed an opinion, making the PCIT's order unsustainable.

What were the facts?

The assessee showed revenue from operations lower than the figure in 26AS. The Assessing Officer (AO) raised this issue during scrutiny assessment and accepted the assessee's explanation for the mismatch. The Principal Commissioner (PCIT) invoked revisionary powers under Section 263, citing the need for thorough verification.

What were the issues?

Whether the PCIT can invoke Section 263 powers for reverification of issues already considered and decided by the AO during scrutiny assessment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 142(1),Section 143,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI

Before: S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar Adv and R.R.Mittal, AR
For Respondent: Shri H.Robindro Singh, ld CIT DR
Hearing: 30/07/2026Pronounced: 30/07/2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Shakambari Infrastructure Vs. ACIT/DCIT, CEN Circle-1, Private Limited, Sri Block Sri Ranchi. Ram Garden, Kanke, Ranchi- 834008, Jharkhand. PAN/GIR No. AANCS5539C (Appellant) .. ( Respondent)

Assessee by : S/Shri Devesh Poddar Adv and R.R.Mittal, AR Revenue by : Shri H.Robindro Singh, ld CIT DR Date of Hearing : 30/07/2026 Date of Pronouncement : 30/07/2026

O R D E R Per Bench This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld PCIT (Central), Patna at Ranchi dated 31.03.2026 u/s.263 of the Act for the assessment year 2019-20.

2.

Shri Devesh Poddar and Shri R.R.Mittal, ld ARs appeared for the assessee and Shri H.Robindro Singh, ld CIT DR appeared for the revenue.

3.

It was submitted by the ld. AR that the ld. Pr.CIT has invoked his power u/s.263 of the Act because the assessee has shown revenue from operations for

P a g e 1 | 12 an amount of Rs.22,87,366/-, whereas the figure reflected in 26AS was Rs.64,88,595/-. It was the submission that this issue was the subject matter of scrutiny assessment. Ld. AR drew our attention to the notice issued u/s.142(1) of the Act dated 14.11.2023, which reads as follows:

“

P a g e 2 | 12 P a g e 3 | 12 P a g e 4 | 12 P a g e 5 | 12 P a g e 6 | 12

4.

It was the submission that in item No.5, this issue of mismatch in the form 26AS had been raised by the AO. The asessee has also filed its response before the AO which showed that the difference was on account of an amount of Rs.42,31,213/- from the Information and Publication Relation Department which had been received during the current year but related to the immediately preceding year. It was the submission that this was also brought to the attention of the ld. Pr. CIT, insofar as the ld. Pr. CIT has, in para 8 of his order, categorically mentioned that this was on account of the revenue report reported in the P&L account because the Information and Public Relation Department had deducted the TDS only upon the payment. It was the submission that the ld. Pr. CIT accepted that the explanation is a plausible accounting explanation in para 12 of his order but still held that it required a thorough verification and only for the purpose of verification, the ld. Pr. CIT has invoked the power u/s.263 of the Act to set aside the assessment order passed u/s.143 r.w.s.147 of the Act dated 12.03.2024. It was the submission that the assessee does not prepare the assessment order. The assessee is expected to respond the notices issued u/s.142(1) of the Act and provide the details. The assessee provided the details. The explanation of the assessee was accepted and the AO has accepted the returned income. It was the submission that the order passed u/s.263 of the Act was only for the purpose of verification and this is not permissible u/s.263 of the Act. The ld.AR has filed his written submission reads as follows :-

P a g e 7 | 12 P a g e 8 | 12 P a g e 9 | 12

5.

In reply, the ld. CIT-DR submitted that the order of the AO is a very cryptic order and the explanation given by the assessee has not been properly considered by the AO. It was the submission that as the issue has not been considered in its proper perspective, the ld.Pr. CIT was entitled to invoke his power u/s.263 of the Act.

6.

We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts of the present case clearly shows that in the course of reassessment proceedings in the case of the assessee, which has culminated in the assessment order dated 12.03.2024, the issue of the reconciliation of 26AS and the mismatch thereof has been done. The notice u/s.142(1) of the Act raises this issue. The assessee has also filed his reply along with the reconciliation statement. The AO having not made

P a g e 10 | 12 any addition on the said account clearly shows that the AO has accepted the explanation. Just because the order of the AO is cryptic, it does not mean that the AO has not done the investigation. The order of the ld. Pr. CIT passed u/s.263 of the Act also does not say as to how the explanation given by the assessee is erroneous. In fact, the ld. Pr. CIT accepts that the explanation is a plausible explanation. The ld. Pr. CIT has invoked his power u/s.263 of the Act basically for reverification of the evidences which have already been verified by the AO. The power u/s.263 of the Act cannot be used for the purpose of verification. The power u/s.263 of the Act cannot be invoked for a fishing and roving enquiry. The power u/s.263 of the Act cannot be used for even an attempt to impose the opinion of the ld. Pr. CIT over that of the AO. This being so, as the issue which has been raised in the order u/s.263 of the Act was an issue which has been considered by the AO in the course of reassessment proceedings, we are of the view the AO has already drawn an opinion on the issue and the order of the ld. Pr. CIT passed u/s.263 of the Act for reverification of the evidences is not permissible. Consequently, the order passed u/s.263 of the Act is found to be unsustainable and the same stands quashed.

7.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 30/07/2026. Sd/- sd/- (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ranchi; Dated 30/07/2026

P a g e 11 | 12 Amit (Sr.PS) Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Shakambari Infrastructure Private Limited, Sri Block Sri Ram Garden, Kanke, Ranchi- 834008, Jharkhand. 2. The Respondent: PCIT (Central), Patna 3. The CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi 4. Pr.CIT, Ranchi 5. DR, ITAT, 6. Guard file. //True Copy// By order

Sr.Pvt. Secretary ITAT, Ranchi

P a g e 12 | 12

More judgments on Section 263

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →