Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed appeals against the order of the PCIT(Central) passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee contended that the PCIT erred in revising the assessment order without proper jurisdiction or opportunity of being heard, and that the AO's original order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.
Held
The Tribunal held that the PCIT wrongly assumed jurisdiction under Section 263 as the Assessing Officer's order was not erroneous. The Tribunal found that the AO had followed established legal precedents regarding the necessity of incriminating material for reassessment under Section 153A. Consequently, the appeals were allowed.
Key Issues
Whether the PCIT's order under Section 263 was justified when the Assessing Officer's order was not erroneous and was passed in accordance with law. Also, whether Section 153A assessment requires incriminating material found during search.
Sections Cited
263, 153A, 143(3), 153(A), 40(a)(ia), 36(1)(va), 132, 132A, 147, 148, 150, 151, 68
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR
Before: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 386 to 388/JPR/2025
vkns'k@ORDER PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. The present three appeals have been filed by the assessee against the order of ld. PCIT(Central), Jaipur all dated 26.03.2024 passed under section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment years 2014-15 to 2016-17 respectively.
Since the issues involved in all the appeals are almost common, inter related and also have been heard together disposed of with this common order.
We take up the appeal of the assessee in wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds: - “1. Under facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order dated 26.03.2024 passed by the Ld. PCIT (Central) u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is arbitrary, perverse, bad in law and without jurisdiction.
2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. PCIT (Central) erred in passing Impugned order u/s 263 of the Act without providing opportunity of being heard.
3. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. PCIT has grossly erred in holding that the Assessment Order dated 23.09.2021 passed by Ld. AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
4. Under facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld PCIT(Central) has erred in holding assessment order passed by Ld. AO to be erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue in respect of issue which were outside the scope of the Ld. Assessing Officer, therefore, Ld. PCIT could not have exercised jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act.
5. Under facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. PCIT(Central) has erred in giving alleged finding that there were alleged cash transaction between Assessee and Sh. Ramesh Kumar Manihar Group.
6. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, revise and modify any of the grounds of appeal on, before or in the course of hearing of the appeal.”
5.1 At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 284 days in filing of the appeals by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed applications for condonation of delay with following prayers and the assessee to this effect also filed an affidavit :-
“Respected Sir/Madam 1.The appeal is being filed by the appellant, against the order dated 26.03.2024 passed by Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Ld. PCIT for short). The said order has To 388/JPR/2025 Sh. Vikash Dugar L/h Late of Shri Keshari Singh Dugar, Jaipur. been received by Applicant being legal heir of the deceased Assessed on 11.02.2025, after acquiring the knowledge of passing of the Order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act on 20.01.2025.
2.Though the Appeal is being filed with the statutory available period from the date of acquiring knowledge as well as date of receipt of the order, however, there is sufficient time gap of 346 days between the date of passing of Impugned order and date when the appeal is original being filed. The said time gap is explained in view of the following facts and circumstances:
3.Applicant is son as well as legal heir of Late Shri Kesari Duggar, (deceased assesses) in whose case Impugned Order was passed by Ld. PCIT, Central, Jaipur. 4.Late Shri Keshari Singh Dugar was an assessee against whom an order u/s 263 of the Act was passed and Applicant have been residing abroad for the last so many years for the purpose of its Business.
5.The deceased assesses, had been suffering from the chronic Parkinsons diseasefor the last so many years. The aforesaid disease made him bedridden to such an extent that he was not even able to follow his daily pursuits in his life. In this context, copy of medical records and history is being enclosed herewith as Annexure 1
6.The said disease also affected his memory to an extent that it started hampering his mental cognitive functions as well. He, died on 26.07.2024 due to prolonged illness at Jaipur. Copy of death certificate is enclosed herewith as Annexure-2.
7.It came to Applicant knowledge through his relative in India on 20.01.2025 about the fact that assessment orders passed have been passed against late Shri Keshari Singh Dugar for the Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17, which imposed an income tax liability.
8.Upon perusal of the said assessment orders, it came to knowledge of undersigned on 20.01.2025 that Orders u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act for AY 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 were passed by Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and pursuant to the directions in the said Orders assessment orders were passed against deceased Assessee.
9.Applicant on getting knowledge of passing said Orders, sought legal opinion and based on the legal opinion received, Applicant filed an application on 27.01.2025 before office of Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax for copies of the said orders u/s To 388/JPR/2025 Sh. Vikash Dugar L/h Late of Shri Keshari Singh Dugar, Jaipur. 263 of the Act passed in case of Late Shri Keshari Duggar. The copy of said application is enclosed herewith as Annexure-3
In pursuance of the same, copy of said Orders u/s 263 of the Act was received on 11.02.2025 through authorized representative. Thereafter, pursuant to receipt of the copy of the said orders, appeal is being filed within the statutory period of limitation from the date of acquiring knowledge as well as date of receipt of orders u/s 263 of the Act.
11. Furthermore, the process of seeking appropriate legal assistance and determining the next course of action consumed a considerable amount of time. As a result, there is time gap between the date of passing of Impugned Order as well as date of filing present appeal, which have occurred due to circumstances beyond the control of the Applicant as explained herein above.
12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and reasons explained, it is prayed that delay, if any, may kindly be condoned in the interest of justice, equity and fairness as there is prima facie strong case on legal as well as on factual points.
13. It is also prayed that the sufficient cause has been established for inadvertent and bonafide time gap beyond the control of the legal heir, in filing present appeal. Thus, the same may kindly be considered and appeal be admitted as sole purpose of justice will be defeated. Further, no prejudice would occur to the department/revenue if the appeal is admitted, even after considering the present application and any delay in filing and adjudicated by the Hon’ble Bench.
14. It is submitted that courts should adopt liberal approach while dealing with application of condonation of delay, if any, in filing appeals. Reliance in this context is placed on judicial pronouncement as follows: Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Ors. Vs. Respondent: Katiji and Ors.Civil Appeal No. 460 of 1987 When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so To 388/JPR/2025 Sh. Vikash Dugar L/h Late of Shri Keshari Singh Dugar, Jaipur. In view of the above, delay, if any, in filing the present appeal may kindly be condoned wand appeal may kindly be admitted for adjudication on merits.”” In support of the contentions so raised the Authorized person has filed an affidavit to support the contentions raised in the prayer for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
5.2 The AR has contended during the hearing that delay in filing the appeals is well explained and Bonafide and technically there is no delay as the appeal has been filed within limitation of 2 months from end of month of acquiring knowledge of the passing of order u/s 263 of the Act, while the present legal heir received intimation of having passed the assessment order in pursuance to Impugned Order u/s 263 of the Act 5.3 Per contra, ld. DR has contended that there is a substantial delay in filing the appeal and there is no merit in the contentions of the Assessee.
5.4 We have heard the rival submission and perused the material placed on records. We note that these appeals were filed with delay of about 284 days. The applications filed by the assessee has been perused along with affidavits and passport details filed by the appellant and we find that appellant has proved the reasonable cause along with affidavits produced for filing the appeals post getting knowledge of the passing of an Impugned Order against his late father. Therefore, To 388/JPR/2025 Sh. Vikash Dugar L/h Late of Shri Keshari Singh Dugar, Jaipur. there is merit in the explanation given by the appellant. The Ld. DR has opposed the applications merely on substantial delay shown having regard to date of impugned order, however, no infirmity has been provided in the explanation given by the appellant as to why the same is not Bonafide or incorrect. Thus, the said appeal is admitted for disposal and delay is condoned.
As stated above, the present appeal has been filed by the Legal heir of the deceased assessee, Mr. Kesari Dugar, which has been assessed to tax for year under consideration vide assessment order dated 11.01.2021 u/s 153A of the Act. As per the assessee, it has duly filed all the information and details as called during the assessment proceedings, post search in case of the appellant for year under consideration, which is completed assessment. The said reply was filed on 26.08.2021 and after examination the reply cum objections on legal issue on the ground of lack of jurisdiction u/s 153A of the Act, the AO passed the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153(A) for the A.Y. 2014-15 at returned income. The said assessment order was sought to be revised by Ld. PCIT, vide Impugned Order u/s 263 of the Act, which is under challenge.
The ld. AR for the assessee has contended that Ld. AO is assumed to act as per the law and confine his action within the legal framework provided under the law. The law is well settled that jurisdiction u/s 153A in case of complete To 388/JPR/2025 Sh. Vikash Dugar L/h Late of Shri Keshari Singh Dugar, Jaipur. assessment is not available in the absence of any incriminating material found during search in case of completed assessment. On the date of search in case of appellant, it is a case of completed assessment, thus, AO has rightly not acted upon u/s 153A as he could not have acted u/s 153A of the Act. Therefore, there is no error in the order passed by AO and accordingly, the same is not erroneous which is condition precedent u/s 263 of the Act.
On the contrary, the Ld. DR has contended that once the information is available and case is open u/s 153A of the Act, the AO could make the addition u/s 153A of the Act and Ld. AO has thus erred in not proceeding on the basis of the said information as was available in the records of the AO.
We have considered and gone through the material. We note that information was called for during the proceedings and instructions were given to Ld. DR to submit the information which was forwarded to Assessing Officer during original assessment proceeding. The said information was made available by Ld. DR during hearing on 27.05.2025/28.05.2025 and we have perused the same. Thus, the core issue is whether such information could have resulted into any material u/s 153A of the Act and the Ld. AO could have assumed the jurisdiction u/s 153A of the Act to make addition in the absence of any incriminating material found during search in case of the appellant.
To 388/JPR/2025 Sh. Vikash Dugar L/h Late of Shri Keshari Singh Dugar, Jaipur.
10. The appellant has assailed the Impugned Order passed by Ld. PCIT on the ground that Order passed by Ld. AO is not erroneous in so far as to be prejudicial to satisfy the twin conditions of provisions of Section 263 of the Act. The core issue emanating from the present appeals is whether Ld.AO could have assumed jurisdiction to assesses based on the information received arising out of search in case of third party in assessment proceedings u/s 153A carried out in the case of the assessee pursuant to the search action in the case of the assessee. In other words can completed assessment can be disturbed/revisited in the absence of any incriminating material found during search action in the hands of the assessee but based on third party search material/information. Further, whether AO could have raised any query on the material not found during search in case of the Appellant but found subsequently in another search. We note that law on this point is no more res integra and has been dealt with various judicial precedents, which are referred as below:-
The Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Kabul Chawla, (2016) 380 ITR 573 the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that “vii. Completed assessments can be interfered with by the AO while making the assessment under Section 153A only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition of documents or undisclosed income or property discovered in the To 388/JPR/2025 Sh. Vikash Dugar L/h Late of Shri Keshari Singh Dugar, Jaipur. course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment.
Conclusion 38. The present appeals concern AYs, 2002-03, 2005-06 and 2006-07. On the date of the search the said assessments already stood completed. Since no incriminating material was unearthed during the search, no additions could have been made to the income already assessed.”
Further in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kurele Paper Mills P. Ltd, (2016) 380 ITR 571 (Del), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that “The Court finds that the order of the CIT(Appeals) reveals that there is a factual finding that “no incriminating evidence related to share capital issued was found during the course of search as is manifest from the order of the AO.” Consequently, it was held that the AO was not justified in invoking Section 68 of the Act for the purposes of making additions on account of share capital.” The revenue filed SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the above order, which has been dismissed vide SLP No 21186/2015 dated 07/12/2015.
The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Jai Steel (India), Jodhpur v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax(2013) 259 CTR (Raj) 281 held that where undisclosed income or undisclosed property has been found as a consequence of the search, the same would also be taken into consideration while To 388/JPR/2025 Sh. Vikash Dugar L/h Late of Shri Keshari Singh Dugar, Jaipur. computing the total income under Section 153A of the Act. The Jurisdictional High Court in the said case has held that:-
"22. In the firm opinion of this Court from a plain reading of the provision along with the purpose and purport of the said provision, which is intricately linked with search and requisition under Sections 132 and 132A of the Act, it is apparent that: (a) the assessments or reassessments, which stand abated in terms of II proviso to Section 153A of the Act, the AO acts under his original jurisdiction, for which, assessments have to be made; (b) regarding other cases, the addition to the income that has already been assessed, the assessment will be made on the basis of incriminating material; and (c) in absence of any incriminating material, the completed assessment can be reiterated and the abated assessment or reassessment can be made."
Similar view has been taken by coordinate Bench in the case of Pr. CIT Central-2 vs. Ram Narain Jindal, in ITA 1020, 1021, 1023/2017 vide order dated 21/11/2017 relying upon the decision in case of Kabul Chwala (supra) held that “In these appeals, the addition made under Section 153A were set aside by the Tribunal, on application of the decision in ‘Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kabul Chawla’, 380 ITR 573 (Del.). It was held that in the absence of any incriminating material concerning such additions found during the search proceedings, the matter, which was examined earlier in the assessment proceedings, could not be reopened.
To 388/JPR/2025 Sh. Vikash Dugar L/h Late of Shri Keshari Singh Dugar, Jaipur.
Following the various judicial precedent, coordinate Bench, in the case of in the case of Kota Dall Mill vs. DCITITA No. 997 to 1002/JP/2018 & 1119/JP/2018 has held that “there is no dispute that these transactions of unsecured loans and partners’ capital contribution are duly recorded in the books of accounts and disclosed in the return of income which were already completed as the assessments for these four assessment years were not pending on the date of search, therefore, it is manifest from the record that during the course of search and seizure under section 132 of the Act in the case of the assessee no material much less the incriminating material was unearthed or any undisclosed income which was not disclosed in the books of accounts was detected or found. The only incriminating material which was referred by the AO is pages 21 to 26 of Annexure AS-1 in respect of long term capital gain earned by Shri Rajendra Agarwal and his family members. The said long term capital gain was disclosed by Shri Rajendra Agarwal in his statement under section 132(4) and, therefore, it was surrendered and offered to tax by Shri Rajendra Agarwal and his family members in the year of search. The AO himself has not made any addition in the hand of the assessee on account of long term capital gain which was found during the course of search and seizure. Thus, except the material disclosing the long term capital gain in the hand of Shri Rajendra Agarwal, no other incriminating material either found or referred or is the basis of the addition made by the AO while framing the assessment under section 153A of the Act for the assessment years 2010-11 to 13-14.”
In the case of M/s Rajasthan Fort & Palace Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT it was held 16. that “In case the assessment is pending on the date of search the same shall be abated as per proviso to U/s 153A(1) of the Act and the AO is free to assess the income of the assessee as regular assessment. However, in case of completed assessment and not abated due to initiation of search u/s 132 or making of requisition u/s 132A the AO has to reassess the total income of the assessee and therefore, the assessment already completed can be tinkered with or distrusted To 388/JPR/2025 Sh. Vikash Dugar L/h Late of Shri Keshari Singh Dugar, Jaipur. until and unless incriminating material is found and seized during the course of search or requisition as case may be indicating undisclosed income of the assessee. Therefore, the scope and jurisdiction of the AO to reassesse the total income of the assessee u/s 153A is limited only to the extent of the income disclosed by the incriminating material found and seized during the search and seizure action. The Assessing Officer has reassessed the income of the assessee by making the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) as well as u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act without making any reference to any incriminating material found. Therefore, the disallowance/addition made by the AO for these 3 assessment years completed u/s 153A is undisputedly not based on any incriminating material found or seized during the course 6 to 599/JP/2017 M/s Rajasthan Fort & Palace Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT of search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act. Once, the Assessing Officer has completed the reassessment u/s 153A without any reference to the incriminating material found then, no addition cannot be made to the returned income of the assessee.”
In the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax vs. A.M. Exports order dated 07/01/2019 it was held that “If the statement of the assessee is read in toto then there will be no admission regarding any of the loan transactions being an accommodation entry. Therefore, the question arises whether in absence of any incriminating material, the Assessing Officer can make To 388/JPR/2025 Sh. Vikash Dugar L/h Late of Shri Keshari Singh Dugar, Jaipur. any addition to the total income of the assessee when the assessment was not abated due to the search and seizure action.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla (supra) has considered and observed in para 37 and 38 as under: 37. On a conspectus of Section 153A(1) of the Act, read with the provisos thereto, and in the light of the law explained in the aforementioned decisions, the legal position that emerges is as under: i. Once a search takes place under Section 132 of the Act, notice under Section 153 A(1) will have to be mandatorily issued to the person searched requiring him to file returns for six AYs immediately preceding the previous year relevant to the AY in which the search takes place. ii. Assessments and reassessments pending on the date of the search shall abate. The total income for such AYs will have to be computed by the AOs as a fresh exercise. iii. The AO will exercise normal assessment powers in respect of the six years previous to the relevant AY in which the search takes place. The AO has the power to assess and reassess the 'total income' of the aforementioned six years in separate assessment orders for each of the six years. In other words there will be only one assessment order in respect of each of the six AYs "in which both the disclosed and the undisclosed income would be brought to tax". iv. Although Section 153 A does not say that additions should be strictly made on the basis of evidence found in the course of the search, or other post-search material or information available with the AO which can be related to the evidence found, it does not mean that the assessment "can be arbitrary or made without any relevance or nexus with the seized material. Obviously an assessment has to be made under this Section only on the basis of seized material." v. In absence of any incriminating material, the completed assessment can be reiterated and the abated assessment or reassessment can be made. The word 'assess' in To 388/JPR/2025 Sh. Vikash Dugar L/h Late of Shri Keshari Singh Dugar, Jaipur. Section 153 A is relatable to abated proceedings (i.e. those pending on the date of search) and the word 'reassess' to completed assessment proceedings.
Similarly, in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-2 Vs. Meeta Gutgutia (2017) 395 ITR 526 (Del.), The Hon’ble Delhi High Court, held that :
47. What the AO did, as was noted by the CIT(A), was to proceed on the basis as if there should have been such undisclosed franchisee income in the earlier AYs as well because the modus operandi of the Assessee during those was the same. The AO also presumed that the number of outlets remained constant in all the AYs from 2000-01 to 2006-07. He proceeded to estimate the undisclosed income at a certain percentage of the amount disclosed by the Assessee in the year of search. The AO presumed that the Assessee had 52 owned/controlled franchisee outlets during October to December, 2007 and would have had the same numbers during the earlier years as well. A question was posed to Mr. Gadia during the assessment proceedings:
Please give the details with complete names and addresses of 46 outlets, 65 strategic alliance and 156 vendor partners outside India as mentioned in your group profile." That question was based on the information collected from the Assessee's website. On the other hand, the Assessee filed an affidavit dated 18th March, 2010 before the CIT(A) pointing out that there were different numbers of owned/controlled outlets and franchisee outlets during the various AYs. From that affidavit, it would be seen that for AY 2004-05, there were only 4 owned outlets and 21 franchisee outlets.
All these additions were therefore held to be unsustainable in law as they were based on a misconception as to the factual position with regard to the number of outlets in existence during the relevant previous year as well as "on the suspicion that the appellant must have earned undisclosed income during the year under appeal". It has been categorically found by the CIT(A) on facts that no incriminating material in relation to the AYs in question i.e., 2001-02 to 2003-04 had been brought on record which could support such presumption.”
Recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court has upheld the legal position in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Central vs. Abhisar Buildwell 2023) 150 taxmann.com 257 (SC) and held that:-
To 388/JPR/2025 Sh. Vikash Dugar L/h Late of Shri Keshari Singh Dugar, Jaipur.
That even though the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed in respect of assessments passed under 153A and 153C, in the absence of incriminating material found during the search, in respect of such income which was found to have escaped assessment other than through incriminating material, the assessing officers would be entitled to reassess such income in terms of section 147/148 read with section 150. (iii) That the Assessing Officer, may if found necessary initiate fresh proceedings within 60 days from date of disposal of this application following the procedure stipulated in section 147-151 of the Act as is in force now.
In view of the above and without further entering into the merits of the application and/or expressing anything on merits on the prayers sought in the present application, the present application is not entertained and we relegate the Revenue to file an appropriate review application seeking the reliefs which are sought in the present application and as and when such review application is filed the same be heard and decided and disposed of in the open court. At the cost of repetition, we observe that as we have not entered into the merits of the present application and we relegate the Revenue to file an appropriate review application, the review application be decided and disposed of in accordance with law and on its own merits.
The Hon’ble Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Wind World India Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Mumbai [2017] 86 taxmann.com 279 (Mumbai - Trib.), while dealing with the similar issue, has held that “15. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the issue before us, and in the backdrop of our aforesaid observations are persuaded to observe that the A.O after deliberating upon the contention of the assessee that as on the date on which the Search & seizure proceedings under Sec. 132 were conducted on it, viz.14.03.2013, no assessment or reassessment proceedings for the year under consideration i.e. A.Y. 2007-08were pending, therefore, in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of the Search &seizure proceedings, no addition in respect of the unabated assessment for the year under consideration could be made in the hands of the assessee company, had thus in the backdrop of the order of the 'Special Bench' of the Tribunal in the case of All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. (supra) and the To 388/JPR/2025 Sh. Vikash Dugar L/h Late of Shri Keshari Singh Dugar, Jaipur. order of the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Pratibha Industries Ltd. (supra), as were available at the time of the assessment proceedings and were specifically relied upon by the assessee before him, rightly refrained from making any addition in the hands of the assessee. We find that as observed by us hereinabove, the aforesaid view of the Tribunal that in case of an unabated assessment no addition in the absence of any incriminating material emerging during the course of the Search & seizure proceedings conducted u/s 132(1) can be made in the hands of an assessee, had been approved by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court and the issue is no more res integra in light of the judgments delivered in the case of (i) Murli Agro Products Ltd. (supra); (ii) Continental Warehousing Corpn.(supra); and (iii) Continental Warehousing Corpn. (Nhava Sheva) Ltd. (supra). We have deliberated on the facts r.w the settled position of law and are of the considered view that as the A.O remaining within the four parameters of law had passed the assessment order u/s. 153A r.w.s 143(3), dated, 27.03.2015, therefore, the said assessment cannot be faulted with and held to be "erroneous". We thus are of the considered view that now when the assessment order passed by the A.O is not found to be "erroneous", therefore, the Principal CIT had wrongly assumed jurisdiction and revised the order in exercise of the powers vested with him u/s 263 of the 'Act'. We thus set aside the order passed by the Principal CIT under Sec. 263 of the 'Act' and restore the order passed by the A.O under Sec. 153A r.w.s 143(3), dated. 27.03.2015.”
On analysis of the aforesaid judgments and respectfully following judicial precedents cited above, we find that order passed by Ld. AO was not erroneous as he followed the view taken by various courts and settled legal position. Respectfully following the aforesaid judgments, we are of the view that the order passed is not erroneous to confer jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. Twin conditions of Section 263 of the Act are not satisfied. Thus, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed and order passed by PCIT, Central, Jaipur u/s 263 of the Act is set aside and the order passed u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) by Ld. AO are restored.
To 388/JPR/2025 Sh. Vikash Dugar L/h Late of Shri Keshari Singh Dugar, Jaipur. 22. We note that there are similar issues and contentions are raised for for AY 2015-16 and ITA No. 388/JPR/2025 for AY 2016-17, for parity of reasons given above, we condone the delay and allowed these appeals and accordingly set aside the Order passed by Ld. PCIT, Central, Jaipur.
In the result, the all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 15/07/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼ xxu xks;y ½ ¼MkWa-,l-lhrky{eh½ (Gagan Goyal) (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 15/07/2025 *Santosh आदेश की प्रतिलिपिअग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू The Appellant- Sh. Vikash Dugar L/h Late of Shri Keshari Singh Dugar, jaipur. 1. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- PCIT(Central), Jaipur. 3. vk;djvk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File to 388/JPR/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेजज. त्महपेजतंत