NARENDRA KUMAR MAKHIJA,KOTA vs. PCIT, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in exercising powers under Section 263 as the material available to him was the same as that with the AO, and the PCIT did not conduct independent inquiry. The PCIT's view was merely a different opinion, not a case of erroneous assessment prejudicial to revenue.
What were the facts?
The assessee's assessment order for AY 2018-19 included an addition of Rs. 1,43,81,100/- under Section 68 on account of cash deposits. The PCIT, invoking Section 263, set aside the assessment order in part, directing the AO to verify the entire cash deposit of Rs. 14,38,81,100/-.
What were the issues?
Whether the PCIT correctly exercised revisionary powers under Section 263 when the material was the same and no independent inquiry was conducted? Whether a mere difference of opinion between the AO and PCIT justifies revision under Section 263?
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(4)Show listHide 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.
- CIT v. Ralson Industries Ltd. 5153 citing288 ITR 322 · 2007 · SC · Read judgment
- (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Del), CIT v. Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd.52 citing242 ITR 490 · 2000 · HC
- 70 ITD 214 11. Jain Bharat Tanners Vs. CIT (Mad) 264 ITR 673 12. Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. CIT(Mad)35 citing101 ITD 495 · 2006 · ITAT
- (i) Malabar Industrial Limited v. CIT (SC)10 citing51 DTR 228 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B-Bench” JAIPUR
Before: SHRIGAGAN GOYAL, AM& SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM
In view of the above discussion, we find that the assessment order could not be termed to be erroneous in view of the provisions of section 263 read with Explanation 2 thereof, and as such, hold that Learned PCIT
As a result, this appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. File be consigned to the record room after the needful is done by the office. Order pronounced in the open court on 13/11/2025.
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ramesh K Devadiga And Ors vs. Khernagar Nandadeep Co-Operative Housing Society LTD And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Permender Singh vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Abdhish Dhal Samanta, Bhubaneswar vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Kniit Net Industries Private Limited, Khurda vs. Superintendent Of CGST And Central Excise, Bhubaneswar Ii CircleOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Swarnapai Chemicals (Opc) Private Limited, Cuttack vs. Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack IOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
