MUKUL ROHATGI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 61(1), NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the PCIT failed to provide sufficient material and reasons to justify the revision order. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had considered the relevant material and taken a possible view, and the PCIT's order lacked the necessary basis to deem it erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a Senior Advocate, had his assessment order revised by the PCIT under Section 263. The PCIT questioned the taxability of certain funds as long-term capital gains and the Annual Letting Value (ALV) of properties. The assessee contended that the funds were equity-oriented and the properties were correctly accounted for.
What were the issues?
Whether the PCIT's revision order under Section 263 was justified due to lack of material and proper reasoning, and whether the assessee's funds were correctly treated as equity-oriented for capital gains tax purposes.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 263,Section 112A,Section 14A,Section 24(b),Section 271C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(3)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.
- Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT2,943 citing243 ITR 83 · 2000 · SC · Read judgment
- CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd.990 citing203 ITR 108 · 1993 · HC
- ACIT v. Achal Kumar Jain48 citing242 ITR 45 · 2000 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH A : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the revision order passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-12 (hereinafter referred to as 'PCIT') for the assessment year 2020-21. Assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer of NFAC under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Act vide Order dated 28th September, 2022. 2. The assessee is a designated Senior Advocate and practices law before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Original assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) read with
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.
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.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Reliance Money Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai vs Pr CIT 1, MumbaiMumbai6 Oct 2017Allowed
Also relies on ACIT v. Achal Kumar Jain and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the PCIT had invalidly assumed jurisdiction under Section 263. The Assessing Officer had conducted inquiries on all issues raised by the PCIT, and the PCIT failed to demonstrate how the assessment ...
- Dubbi Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd, Dausa vs ITO WD, DausaJaipur9 Sept 2025Allowed
Also relies on ACIT v. Achal Kumar Jain
The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT's invocation of Section 263 to direct the initiation of penalty proceedings under a different section was beyond the scope of his revisional powers. Relying on High Court and Supreme Cou...
- Veera Venkata Ramakrishna Mohana Rao… vs ACIT, Circle - 1, RajahmundryVisakhapatnam22 Aug 2025Allowed
Also relies on ACIT v. Achal Kumar Jain
The Tribunal held that the initiation of revisionary proceedings under Section 263 was not justified solely for the purpose of directing the initiation of penalty proceedings. The failure of the Assessing Officer to reco...
- Suriender Jain, New Delhi vs Prcit-13, New DelhiDelhi12 Mar 2024Allowed
Also relies on ACIT v. Achal Kumar Jain
The Tribunal, relying on various High Court precedents, held that the Commissioner (Pr. CIT) acting under section 263 cannot direct the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) or 273, as penalty proceed...
- Sri Aditya Homes Private Limited, Hyderabad vs ACIT, Central Circle-2(2), HyderabadHyderabad21 Jul 2023Allowed
Also relies on ACIT v. Achal Kumar Jain
The Tribunal held that the PCIT cannot direct the AO to initiate penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) in exercise of revisional powers under Section 263 if the assessment order is silent on penalty. Penalty procee...
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
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
