EMPIRE FINCAP P LTD,DELHI vs. PR, CIT , DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 217/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 April 2026AY 2015-164 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found no merit in the PCIT's action. It noted that the PCIT's own order indicated that Section 56(2)(viia) was not applicable and that the outstanding advances could not be disallowed or added under Sections 68, 69, or 41(1).

What were the facts?

The PCIT invoked revisionary powers under Section 263, deeming the Assessing Officer's assessment order erroneous. The issues concerned the applicability of Section 56(2)(viia) and the verification of outstanding advances of Rs. 5.5 Crores.

What were the issues?

Whether the PCIT correctly invoked Section 263 to revise an assessment order that was not erroneous and did not prejudice the revenue's interest.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 56(2)(viia),Section 68,Section 69,Section 41(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘C’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA

Hearing: 20.04.2026Pronounced: 29.04.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘C’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.217/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Vs. Principal M/s Empire Fincap (P) Ltd. Commissioner of 25, Bazar Lane Bengali Income Tax, Market, Delhi-1 New Delhi- 01 New Delhi PAN: AAACE2884R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Ankit Kumar, Advocate Department by Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 20.04.2026 Date of pronouncement 29.04.2026 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2015-16, arises against the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (in short, the “PCIT(A)”) Delhi’s-1 order passed in DIN & Letter No. dated 07.06.2024 passed in DIN & Letter No. ITBA/COM/F/17/2025- 26/1084170717(1), involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

ITA No.217/Del/2026 2. We note at the outset during the course of hearing that the able assistance coming from both the parties that the learned PCIT’s impugned order has assumed section 263 revision jurisdiction thereby terming the assessing officer regular assessment framed in the assessee’s case dated 06.04.2017 as erroneous one so far as it causes prejudice to interest of the Revenue on the twin issues of section 56 (2)(viia) and for not having carried out the necessary inquiries and verifications regarding its outstanding advances of Rs. 5.5 Crores to the twin companies continuing since the preceding assessment years; as the case may be.

3.

Both the parties vehemently reiterate their respective stands against and in support of the learned PCIT’s impugned revision directions. Learned CIT(DR) more particularly argues that once the Assessing Officer’s regular assessment herein was very much a non speaking one without even having carried out inquiries much less detailed ones, section 263 Explanation 2 very much applies in facts of the instant case; and, therefore, we ought to reject the assessee’s stated herein. 2 | P a g e

ITA No.217/Del/2026

4.

We find no merit in the Revenue’s foregoing vehement contentions supporting the learned PCIT’s action assuming section 263 revision jurisdiction. We make it clear that so far as the first and foremost issue raised in the learned PCIT’s section 263 revision directions is concerned, he categorically observes in Para 10 at Page 14 that the Assessing Officer had neither examined regarding the case availability of corresponding funds nor applicability u/s section 56(2)(viia) which applies if any of such an asset purchased by the specified assessee is at a rate lesser than a prescribed Fair Market Value (FMV) which is admittedly not the case herein.

5.

The factual position is hardly any different regarding the above latter issue of the assessee’s advances amounting to Rs. 5.5 Crores as well. We wish to emphasize here as per learned PCIT’s impugned order in Para 12.2, these are its outstanding advances made since the preceding assessment years which could neither be disallowed nor added; be it u/s 68 or section 69 or section 41(1) of the Act, as the case may be.

3 | P a g e

ITA No.217/Del/2026

6.

Faced with this situation, we are of the considered view that the learned Principal Commissioner has erred in law and on facts in revising the impugned assessment as erroneous one causing prejudice to the interest of justice in light of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC). The assessee succeeds in substantive ground raised herein to this effect in very terms. No other ground or argument has been pressed before us.

7.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 29.04.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (NAVEEN CHANDRA) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 29.04.2026 Pooja Mittal/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

4 | P a g e

More judgments on Section 263

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →