DILIPKUMAR MANUBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. PR. CIT, VADODARA -1, VADODARA

ITA 1654/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 October 2026AY 2018-195 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. The Tribunal noted that the appeal was filed with an inordinate delay of 735 days. The assessee's explanation for the delay, citing reliance on professional assistance and change of auditor, was found to be insufficient and lacking particulars to establish a bonafide cause. The Tribunal observed that the assessee participated in consequential assessment proceedings after the PCIT's order and only challenged the revision order after the consequential assessment order was passed. This was considered an afterthought rather than a sufficient cause. The Tribunal relied on the decision in Pravin Babanrao Tambe vs. PCIT and Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy. Consequently, the petition for condonation of delay was rejected, and the appeal was dismissed without adjudication on the merits of the grounds raised.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Dilipkumar Manubhai Patel, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against an order dated 27-02-2024 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), Vadodara-1, under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessment year in question is 2018-19. The appeal was filed with a delay of 735 days. The PCIT had set aside the assessment order passed under Section 143(3), holding it to be erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The PCIT noted a discrepancy between contract receipts of Rs. 16,52,09,872/- shown in Form 26AS and Rs. 15,72,57,378/- shown in the assessee's P&L account, stating the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to inquire into this mismatch. The assessee contended that the PCIT made arithmetic and factual mistakes and that the AO had conducted sufficient inquiry. The assessee's appeal was filed after a consequential assessment order was passed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. PCIT, Vadodara 1 has erred in passing the order U/s 263, even though the assessment order passed U/s 143(3) was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. PCIT, Vadodara 1 has erred in passing the order U/s 263 by holding the assessment order passed U/s 143(3) as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue on the ground that the AO (National e assessment center) has failed to conduct the inquiry, although the National e assessment center had selected the case of appellant under Complete scrutiny assessment and specifically to verify the issue of Contracts receipts and the National e assessment center had made sufficient enquiries and verification on the issue involved before arriving at the conclusion in the assessment order passed U/s 143(3). It was not a case of no inquiry OR lack of inquiry. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. PCIT, Vadodara 1 has erred in passing the order U/s 263, as the PCIT Vadodara I has made several arithmetic and factual mistakes while arriving at the difference amount for the issue involved for passing revision order under section 263. Moreover, the PCIT Vadodara 1, before arriving to the conclusion that AO has failed to conduct inquiry on the issue involved has severely erred by raising factually incorrect ground in the order under section 263 that ledger extracts and other relevant information produced during revision stage have never been produced before AO and there is no mention of GST in ledger extracts. Assessee's Contention: The assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue. The AO conducted sufficient inquiry, and the PCIT made factual and arithmetic errors. The PCIT's grounds for revision were factually incorrect. The PCIT relied on documents already considered by the AO. Revenue's Contention: Not recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 143(3),Section 253(5)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH

Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri R. Govindarajan

For Appellant: Shri Karan Shah, A.R
For Respondent: Shri Abirama Karthikeyan, CIT-D.R

PER R. GOVINDARAJAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

The assessee has filed the appeal against the order dated 27-02-2024 passed by Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, PCIT, Vadodara-1 (in short, referred to as the PCIT) u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein referred to as “the Act”) relating to Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. PCIT, Vadodara 1 has erred in passing the order U/s 263, even though the assessment order passed U/s 143(3) was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.

2.

Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. PCIT, Vadodara 1 has erred in pa

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.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

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

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →