KAPIL MEHTA,DELHI vs. PCIT(CENTRAL)-3, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 533/DEL/2021Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 July 2026AY 2017-183 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's revision direction was unsustainable as it proposed a double addition. The cash accumulation was already assessed in the hands of the assessee as the legal representative of his father.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed cash receipts of Rs. 2.05 crores as inherited from his deceased father. The Assessing Officer initially accepted this in the assessment. However, the PCIT initiated revision proceedings under Section 263, considering the assessment order erroneous.

What were the issues?

Whether the PCIT's revision under Section 263 was justified when the income was already assessed in the hands of the assessee as a legal representative, leading to a potential double addition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 153A,Section 143(3),Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI M. BALAGANESH

For Respondent: Ms. Lalita Kumari, CIT DR
Hearing: 02.07.2026Pronounced: 02.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 533/Del/2021 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Kapil Mehta, Vs Principal Commissioner of C-10, Phase-IV, Ashok Vihar, Income Tax (Central), Delhi- 110052 ARA Centre, Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi- 110055 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AEYPM8313A

Assessee by: Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta, CA Revenue by : Ms. Lalita Kumari, CIT DR Date of Hearing: 02.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 02.07.2026 ORDER This assessee’s appeal ITA No. 533/Del/2021; for assessment year 2017-18, arises against Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) (for short, ‘PCIT’), Delhi’s order dated 19.03.2021, passed in DIN & Order No. ITBA/REV/F/REV5/2020-21/1031614236(1), involving proceedings u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act’.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

2.

It emerges during the course of hearing at the outset that the assesee/appellant herein is aggrieved against the learned PCIT’s impugned action assuming section 263 revision jurisdiction thereby terming the

2 Assessing Officer’s section 153A assessment framed on 17.01.2018 as an erroneous one causing prejudice to interest of the revenue. A few relevant facts may be noticed.

3.

Suffice to say, the sole substantive issue herein is that of assessment of accumulation of cash receipts of Rs. 2.05 crores claimed by the assessee as inherited on account of his father i.e., Shri Salish Kr. Mehta’s sad demise on 10.11.2016. He had admittedly declared the same in his return filed for the impugned assessment year which was accepted in the learned Assessing Officer’s order/assessment framed on 17.08.2018 not making any addition thereof in his hands. Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (in short, PCIT) thereafter show-caused him that the aforesaid cash amount of Rs. 2.05 crores ought to be assessed in the assessee’s hands and the Assessing Officer’s inaction to this effect rendered his assessment order as an erroneous one causing prejudice to interest of revenue. This is what has made him to issue the impugned directions to the Assessing Officer which leaves the assessee aggrieved.

4.

Both the parties vehemently reiterate their respective stands against and in support of the learned PCIT’s impugned revision directions. It is in this factual backdrop that we sought to know the final status of the assessee’s father’s final assessment regarding the impugned cash accumulation.

5.

Mr. Gupta takes us to the Assessing Officer’s section 143(3) i.e., a regular assessment order dated 30.12.2019 framed in the assessee’s hands as the “legal representative of his father” duly assessing the same

3 u/s 69A of the Act. This clinching factual position has gone unrebutted from the Revenue side. We are of the considered view in this factual backdrop that such an instance of mere double addition i.e., both in the assessee himself as well as in his father’s hands as the “legal representative”, would not render the assessment framed in his case herein as erroneous one causing prejudice to the interest of the Revenue; simultaneously in the light of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC). We thus conclude that learned PCIT’s impugned revision direction amount to a case of double additions proposed in the assessee’s hands are not sustainable in law. The same are hereby reversed for the very precise reason therefore.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed. 6.

Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 02.07.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (M. BALAGANESH) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 07.07.2026 *Pooja Mittal, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

More judgments on Section 263

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →