SOMEN MANDAL,CHALIYAMA vs. ITO WARD, CHAIBASA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the PCIT for re-adjudication. The PCIT was directed to grant the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard and the assessee was directed to cooperate in the proceedings.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against an ex parte revision order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2018-19. The PCIT's order was passed without providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard.
What were the issues?
Whether the PCIT's revision order passed ex parte was valid. Whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity of being heard.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY
Per Bench: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax [hereinafter referred to as the ‘PCIT’] dated 25.03.2025 exercising his revision juri iction u/s 263 of the Act for the assessment year 2018-19. 2. Shri Gourav Maloo, CA represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Sandipan Khan, Sr. DR represented on behalf of the revenue.
A perusal of the facts in the present appeal shows that the order of the ld. PCIT passed u/s 263 is an ex parte order. This being so, in the interest of justice, the issues in the appeal are restored to the file of the ld. PCIT for re-adjudication after granting adequate opportunity of being heard t
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 263
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Vimal Harilal Baldania, Gandhidham vs The ITO Ward 2, GandhidhamITA 770/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Chandan Kumar Bathual vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Cuttack-Iii Range, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Manoranjan Sadangi vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Gopalpur Range, GanjamOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Bijaya Kumar Parekh vs. State Tax Officer, CT And GST Balangir Circle, BalangirOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Puspanjali Bhuyan vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S A2Z Infra Engineering LTD vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026