SRI. PAVAN KANDKUR,HUBBALLI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HUBBALLI

ITA 522/BANG/2022Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 November 2022AY 2017-1810 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the PCIT was not justified in initiating revision proceedings under Section 263 when the assessee had opted for and been accepted into the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas (DTVSV) scheme for the very issue under revision. The revision proceedings were quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee's case was selected for scrutiny, focusing on cash deposits during demonetization. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 92,838/- as unexplained cash credit. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) initiated revision proceedings under Section 263, citing inadequate inquiry by the AO.

What were the issues?

Whether revision proceedings under Section 263 are valid when the assessee has opted for and been accepted under the DTVSV scheme for the same disputed issues. Whether the AO's original assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 143(3),Section 68,Section 115BBE,Section 40A(3)

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, BENGALURU “C” BENCH, BENGALURU

For Appellant: Shri Balram R. Rao, Adv
For Respondent: Ms. Neera Malmotra, CIT-DR
Hearing: 15/11/2022Pronounced: 17/11/2022

Per: Padmavathy, A.M.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the learned CIT, Hubali passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 23.03.2022 for AY 2017-18. 2. The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal: - On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the conditions 1. precedent being absent the proceedings-initiated U/s.263 of the Act was opposed to law and the order passed U/s.263 is liable to be cancelled.

On the facts there being no error much less an error prejudicial to the 2. interest of revenue, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax ought to have refrained from invoking the provisions of Sec.263 of the Act.

The learned

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 →