MICROTEK INFRASTRUTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. PCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 3112/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 March 2026AY 2020-21Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the AO's assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue due to a lack of proper inquiry and verification. The PCIT's order invoking revisionary powers under Section 263 was therefore confirmed.

What were the facts?

The assessee's assessment order was finalized accepting the returned income. The PCIT initiated revision proceedings under Section 263, alleging the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to conduct necessary inquiries and verifications regarding purchases, sundry creditors, and other liabilities.

What were the issues?

Whether the PCIT was justified in invoking revisionary powers under Section 263 due to the AO's failure to conduct adequate inquiries and verifications during the assessment proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 37(1),Section 68,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)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, DELHI BENCH, ‘C’: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA&

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Nagar, CA
For Respondent: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jha, CIT(DR)
Hearing: 18.12.2025Pronounced: 11.03.2026

PER AMITABH SHUKLA, AM,

The captioned appeal has been preferred by the assesseeagainstorder dated 18.03.2025 of the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-4, New Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. PCIT’] arising out of assessment order dated 26.09.2022 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 pertaining to Assessment Year 2020-21. The word ‘Act’ herein this order would mean Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-

1.

Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 9,11,40,892 as bogus purchases u/s 37(1) of the Income Tax 1961 as the assessee has not furnished any documentary evidence in

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 →