TALCHER FERTILIZERS LIMITED,FCIL, TALCHER UNIT vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHUBANESWAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 136/CTK/2026Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 May 2026AY 2022-233 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessment order did not demonstrate that the Assessing Officer had properly examined the issues raised by the PCIT. Therefore, the PCIT's direction for re-examination was upheld.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the PCIT who had directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine certain issues. The assessee contended that these issues were already considered by the Assessing Officer during the scrutiny assessment.

What were the issues?

Whether the PCIT's order directing re-examination of issues was justified when the assessee claimed they were already considered by the Assessing Officer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri Satyajit Mishra, AR
For Respondent: Shri Ashim Kr. Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Hearing: 18.05.2026Pronounced: 18.05.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.136/CTK/2026 Assessment Year: 2022-23 Talcher Fertilizers Ltd. PCIT, Bhubaneswar Vs Post- Vikrampur, Talcher, Dist Angu, Odisha-759106. (PAN: AAFCT8667A) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri Satyajit Mishra, AR Revenue by : Shri Ashim Kr. Chakraborty, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 18.05.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 18.05.2026

ORDER PER BENCH: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the PCIT-1, Bhubaneswar [hereinafter referred to as the ‘PCIT’] in appeal no.PCIT, Bhubaneswar-1/Revision-263/100000860574/2025 dated 15.12.2025.

2.

Shri Satyajit Mishra, AR represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Ashim Kr. Chakraborty, ld. CIT DR represented on behalf of the revenue.

ITA No.136/CTK/2026

3.

It was submitted by the ld. AR that multiple issues have been taken up by the ld. PCIT which have not been examined by the Assessing Officer. It was the submission that in the scrutiny assessment in the case of the assessee wherein all these issues have been considered by the Assessing Officer and the assessment has been completed. It was the submission that the issues have not been considered by the Assessing Officer, the order passed u/s 263 is not sustainable and the same is liable to be quashed. It was the submission that direction for re- examination of the issues would give injustice to the assessee.

4.

In reply, the ld. CIT-DR vehemently supported the order of the ld. PCIT.

5.

We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the assessment order shows that in page 2 of the assessment order, the assessment proceedings have been initiated on 01.06.2023. Initially the assessee has not cooperated, the response of the assessee in full is on 22.02.2024, the assessment order has been passed on 08.03.2024, the details of the questionnaire raised by the Assessing Officer in 142(1) notice has also been extracted by the Assessing Officer. A perusal of the order of the Assessing Officer clearly shows that the Assessing Officer did not consider the issues which have been raised before him in respect of which the assessee has filed its replies. A perusal of the order of the ld. PCIT shows that the ld. PCIT has examined various issues and found

ITA No.136/CTK/2026

certain defects in the verification done by the Assessing Officer. The ld. PCIT only directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the issues. The ld. AR has not been able to point out how it can be said that Assessing Officer examined the issues which have been raised by the ld. PCIT. This being so, we are of the view that order of the ld. PCIT directing the Assessing Officer to do his job properly in respect of issues which have been raised by him cannot be said to be erroneous. This being so, the order of the ld. PCIT passed u/s 263 stands upheld.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Kolkata, the 18th May, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [Rajesh Kumar] [George Mathan] लेखा सदस्य/Accountant Member न्याययक सदस्य/Judicial Member

Dated: 18.05.2026. RS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent – 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR),

//True copy// By order 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 →