TIL HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORP. WARD.6(1), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2017/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 May 2026AY 2022-234 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the PCIT did not provide sufficient time for the assessee to furnish required details, especially concerning the deduction under Section 10AA. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the PCIT for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal is against an order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT). The assessee argued that the PCIT did not provide a reasonable opportunity to furnish details before passing the revision order.

What were the issues?

Whether the PCIT provided a reasonable opportunity to the assessee before passing the revision order under Section 263, and if the assessee was given adequate time to furnish details for deduction under Section 10AA.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 10AA

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Hearing: 06.05.2026Pronounced: 13.05.2026

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ �ायपीठ, चे�ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी इंटूरी रामाराव, लेखा सद� एवं �ी एस.एस. िव�ने� रिव, �ाियक सद� के सम� । Before Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accountant Member & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2017 /Chny/2026 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2022.-23 TIL Healthcare Private Limited, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Corporate Chennai, Tamil Nadu-600008. Ward- 6(1), Chennai. [PAN: AABCT0985H]

(अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओर से / Appellant by : Mr. G. Baskar, Advocate ��थ� की ओर से/Respondent by : Mr. Bipin C.N, CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 06.05.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement 13.05.2026 : आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29.03.2026 passed by the ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai-3, for the assessment year 2022-23.

2.

At the outset, ld. AR Mr. G. Baskar, Advocate, requested to remand the matter to the file of the ld. PCIT for affording reasonable opportunity to the assessee. He drew our attention to the first show-cause notice dated 27.02.2026 at page Nos. 1 to 3 of the paperbook and submits that the ld.

2 I.T.A. No.2017/Chny/26

PCIT issued the said notice calling for information and drew our attention to para 4 of the said show-cause notice. Another show-cause notice dated 17.03.2026 was issued, which is at page Nos. 11 to 13 of the paperbook, and submits that, on comparison with the reply in response to the first show-cause notice, it was found that the profit reported in the SEZ unit is disproportionately high when compared to the unit other than SEZ and the overall profitability of the entity. Ld. AR further drew our attention to the impugned order dated 29.03.2026 and submits that, without giving reasonable opportunity, ld. PCIT concluded the revision proceedings within three days from the date of hearing informed vide email dated 25.03.2026. Ld. AR submits that the assessee could not furnish details before the ld. PCIT as it was a short time of three days from 23.03.2026 to 29.03.2026; therefore, he prayed to remand the matter to the file of the ld. PCIT for his fresh consideration, as the assessee is ready to furnish all details before the ld. PCIT.

3.

Ld. DR reported no objection.

4.

Having heard both the parties. We note that, admittedly, the original assessment order was passed on 17.03.2024 and the first show-cause notice was initiated invoking jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act on 27.02.2026. The assessee filed its response to the first show-cause

3 I.T.A. No.2017/Chny/26

notice on 09.03.2026. Again, on noticing alleged discrepancies, the ld. PCIT issued another second show-cause notice on 17.03.2026. We find that the email intimation requesting the assessee to appear on 26.03.2026, which is at page No. 14 of the paperbook, clearly shows that the ld. PCIT was given only one day for compliance, in our opinion, is not reasonable. Further, we find that the ld. PCIT passed the order under Section 263 of the Act, directing to re-examine the issue of deduction under Section 10AA of the Act, which requires the assessee sufficient time in furnishing required details before the ld. PCIT. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions of the ld. AR and DR, we deem it appropriate to remand the matter to the file of the ld. PCIT for his fresh consideration. The assessee is at liberty to file evidences, if any, in support of its claim. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 13th May, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 13.05.2026

4 I.T.A. No.2017/Chny/26

MM/- आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant, 2.��थ�/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयु�/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध/DR & 5. गाड� फाईल/GF.

More judgments on Section 263

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →