MRS. SAROJA ,BENGALURU vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, BENGALURU-2, BENGALURU

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1053/BANG/2024Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 August 2025AY 2015-16Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), SHRI KESHAV DUBEY (Judicial Member)5 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's Authorized Representative (AR) requested to withdraw the appeal at the outset. This request was made because a consequential assessment order, as per the direction of the PCIT, had already been passed. The Learned Departmental Representative (DR) for the revenue expressed no objection to the withdrawal. Consequently, the Tribunal, as per the request of the assessee's AR, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee or the validity of the PCIT's order under Section 263. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Mrs. Saroja, filed her return of income for Assessment Year 2015-16 on October 6, 2015, declaring a total income of Rs. 2,11,90,349. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on March 25, 2022, accepting the returned income. Subsequently, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), Bengaluru-2, passed an order under Section 263 of the Act on March 27, 2024, setting aside the AO's order, holding it to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The PCIT directed the AO to make a fresh assessment. The assessee filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging the PCIT's order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax was justified in passing an order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, setting aside the assessment order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Act, on the grounds that it was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue? Assessee's contentions: - The PCIT's order was not justified as the AO had made proper and detailed enquiries before passing the assessment order. - The PCIT's order was based on assumptions and presumptions, and was arbitrary and perverse. - There was no error, much less one prejudicial to the revenue, to warrant revision under Section 263. - The direction for a detailed enquiry amounted to a fishing and roving enquiry. - The PCIT erred in holding that the assessee was not entitled to claim Rs. 2,62,760/- as commission expenses. - The PCIT erred in taxing the entire sale consideration of Rs. 2,71,42,500/- for 'Property-B' as long-term capital gains. - The PCIT erred in restricting the claim for dispute settlement expenses to Rs. 12,05,316/- instead of Rs. 26,72,930/-. - The PCIT erred in disallowing development expenses of Rs. 16,21,486/-, leading to disallowance of indexed cost of development to the extent of Rs. 48,07,008/- - The PCIT erred in holding credits totaling Rs. 3,38,23,832/- as unexplained money under Section 69A, despite submissions. - The PCIT erred in denying cash deposits of Rs. 11,86,500/- as unexplained. Revenue's contentions: - The revenue did not record any specific contentions in the judgment, but supported the PCIT's order by implication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 147,Section 144B,Section 143(3),Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B’”*BENCH: BANGALORE

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY

Assessment Year : 2015-16 Mrs. Saroja No.483, 7th Cross JP Nagar 3rd Phase, PCIT Vs. Bengaluru 560 078 Bengaluru-2 PAN NO : AIKPS2233D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Sri Avinash Mallya, A.R. Respondent by : Sri E. Shridhar, D.R. Date of Hearing : 08.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 05.08.2025 O R D E R

PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. PCIT, Bengaluru-2 dated 27.03.2024 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/REV/F/REV5/2023-24/1063437817(1) passed u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for the assessment year 2015-16.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

3.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed her return of income for the AY 2015-16 on 06-10-2015 declaring total income of Rs.2,11,90,349/-. The case was subsequently taken up for scrutiny and the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s.144B of the Act for AY 2015-16 was completed on 25-03-2022 by accepting the returned income. 3.1 Thereafter the ld. PCIT Bengaluru-2 had set aside the order of AO passed on 25.3.2022 u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act by holding that the order is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest Mrs. Saroja, Bangalore Page 5 of 5 of the revenue in terms of section 263 of the Act & directed the AO to make fresh assessment in accordance with law.

4.

Aggrieved by the Order passed u/s 263 of the Act, the assessee has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal.

5.

Before us, at the outset, the ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee requested to withdraw this appeal as the consequential assessment order as per the direction of the Ld. PCIT has already been passed. The ld. DR also expressed no objection if we permit the assessee to withdraw his appeal. Thus, as per the request of the Ld.AR of the assessee, we dismiss this appeal as withdrawn.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn.

More judgments on Section 263

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →