MUJMMEEL ,KOTA vs. ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE , KOTA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 620/JPR/2024Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 February 2025AY 2020-21Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner (PCIT) erred in invoking Section 263 as the AO had made inquiries and applied conscious consideration. The PCIT cannot substitute their view for the AO's when the AO's order is not demonstrably erroneous or prejudicial to revenue.

What were the facts?

During a survey, cash of Rs. 9,00,000/- was found to be unexplained. Incriminating material indicated transactions of Rs. 1,44,35,000/-, on which the Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 2,88,700/- as commission income.

What were the issues?

Whether the PCIT correctly invoked Section 263 to revise the AO's order, and if the AO's assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 143(3),Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 133A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(6)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, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR

Before: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 620/JP/2024

For Appellant: Adv. jktLo dh vksj ls@
Hearing: 20/01/2025Pronounced: 14/02/2025

and after considering the facts in totality, we hold that the order passed u/s 263 of the Act is not sustainable.

Ergo, we quash the order passed by PCIT, Central, Jaipur.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

More judgments on Section 263

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →