WITZENMANN INDIA PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-1, KOLKATA
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had examined the issues raised by the Principal Commissioner in detail and made no additions. Consequently, the appeal was deemed infructuous.
What were the facts?
The assessee appealed against a revisional order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 263. The assessment in the set-aside proceedings was framed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 263, and no additions were made by the Assessing Officer.
What were the issues?
Whether the revisional jurisdiction invoked by the Principal Commissioner under Section 263 was warranted when the Assessing Officer had already examined the issues and made no additions.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]
ORDER
Per Shri Rajesh Kumar, AM
This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the revisional order of Ld. Pr. CIT, Kolkata-1 dated 03.03.2021 for AY 2015-16 passed u/s. 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).
Main grievance of the assessee is against the action of the Ld. Pr. CIT, Kolkata-1 to have invoked the jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act which according to assessee is unwarranted and is bad in law.
At the outset the Ld. AR for the assessee Shri Avishek Kejriwal submitted that the assessment in the set aside proceedings has been framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act vide order dated 28.03.2022 and the issues on which the ld. PCIT has revised and set aside were examined in details by the AO and no additions were made. The ld AR also placed before the bench the copy of the assessment order as referred to above and requested the bench to allow the withdrawal of the appeal. The ld DR also candidly agreed that the assessment has already been framed and no additions were made by the AO.
We have perused the assessment order dated 28.03.2022 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act by the AO and find that no additions were made as proposed by the ld. PCIT in the Witzenmann India Pvt. Ltd., AY 2015-16 revisionary order passed u/s 263 of the Act. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous.
More judgments on Section 263
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Vimal Harilal Baldania, Gandhidham vs The ITO Ward 2, GandhidhamITA 770/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026