VEENA SHAH vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ROHTAK

Facts

The assessee, Veena Shah, is appealing against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench 'G', dated 28.06.2024. This order upheld a remand order dated 27.03.2023 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), Rohtak, under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The PCIT had set aside an assessment order dated 11.02.2021 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) for Assessment Year 2018-19. The PCIT found the AO's assessment to be casual, lacking due diligence, and erroneous, prejudicing the revenue's interest. Subsequently, the AO passed a fresh order on 18.02.2024, which is pending consideration. The ITAT dismissed the assessee's appeal against the PCIT's remand order.

Held

The High Court held that the present appeal was liable to be dismissed. The Court noted that the PCIT's order dated 27.03.2023, remanding the case back to the AO, was challenged before the ITAT. The ITAT, vide its order dated 28.06.2024, dismissed the assessee's appeal and did not interfere with the PCIT's order passed under Section 263. The Court further observed that in implementation of the PCIT's order, the AO passed a fresh order on 18.02.2024, which was pending consideration. Since the ITAT had already upheld the PCIT's remand order, and the subsequent order passed by the AO was pending, the High Court found no reason to interfere with the ITAT's decision. The appeal was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated 27.03.2023 passed by the PCIT, Rohtak, under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which set aside the assessment order dated 11.02.2021 passed by the AO for AY 2018-19 and remanded the case back to the AO, was erroneous, arbitrary, non-speaking, and unsustainable in law? The assessee contended that the ITAT failed to appreciate that the PCIT's order was unsustainable. The revenue contended that the PCIT had jurisdiction and that the AO's assessment was casual and lacked proper verification. 2. Whether the ITAT's order dated 28.06.2024, dismissing the assessee's appeal against the PCIT's remand order, was correct? The assessee argued that the ITAT erred in upholding the PCIT's order. The revenue argued that the ITAT correctly dismissed the appeal. The appeal before the High Court is against the ITAT's order.