BACHHARAJ & CO PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PR COMM. OF INCOME TAX-3, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2613/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 July 2025AY 2020-21Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON'BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 2613/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Bachhraj & Co. Private Limited 2nd Floor, Bajaj Bhavan 226 J.B. Marg Nariman Point Mumbai - 400021 [PAN: AAACB5589N] अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) Vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Mumbai प्रत्यर्थी / (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Kirit Kamdar, A/R Revenue by : Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT D/R सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 23/1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the issue raised by the PCIT regarding the claim of deduction under Section 80G for CSR expenditure was highly debatable. Therefore, any view taken by the Assessing Officer (AO) during assessment was a plausible view, and the PCIT's view amounted to a change of opinion, for which Section 263 jurisdiction could not be assumed.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed its return of income for AY 2020-21, which was selected for scrutiny. The assessment was completed, and the returned income was assessed at a higher figure. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) invoked Section 263, stating the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.

What were the issues?

Whether the PCIT can assume jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when the issue is debatable and the PCIT's view amounts to a change of opinion, and whether CSR expenditure can be claimed as a donation under Section 80G.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144B,Section 263,Section 37(1),Section 80G,Section 115JB,Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE & SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, HON’BLE

For Appellant: Shri Kirit Kamdar, A/R
Hearing: 23/07/2025Pronounced: 25/07/2025

Assessee by : Shri Kirit Kamdar, A/R Revenue by : Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT D/R सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 23/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 25/07/2025 आदेश/O R D E R

PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM:

1.

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai - 3 [hereinafter ‘the ld. Pr. CIT’] dated 13/03/2025 pertaining to AY 2020-21.

2.

The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is that the ld. Pr. CIT erred in assuming jurisdiction conferred upon him by the provisions of Section 263 of the Act and further erred in holding that the assessment dated 27/09/2022 framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act is erroneous inasmuch as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 01/02/2021 declaring total income at Rs. 83,74,38,910/-. The return was selected for scrutiny assessment and 2 accordingly statutory notices were issued and served upon the assessee. Vide order dated 27/09/2022, the returned income of the assessee was assessed at Rs. 88,17,67,529/-. Assuming jurisdiction conferred upon him by the provisions of Section 263 of the Act, the ld. Pr. CIT issued showcause notice:-

More judgments on Section 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →