FAIZAN AHMAD,DEHRADUN vs. PR.CIT, DEHRADUN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 821/DEL/2021Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 February 2026AY 2015-16Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. Naveen Chandra (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's assessment, conducted under limited scrutiny, was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue. The PCIT's revision order was deemed to have erred in law and facts.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the PCIT's revision order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The PCIT directed revision of the Assessing Officer's assessment, citing lack of detailed enquiries regarding land advance and agricultural income, and mismatch in sales turnover and capital increase.

What were the issues?

Whether the PCIT's revision under Section 263 was justified given the limited scrutiny conducted by the Assessing Officer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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, DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Ms. Ruchika Rana, Adv
For Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Hearing: 11.02.2026Pronounced: 11.02.2026

ORDER

Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:

1.

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2015-16 arises against the PCIT, Dehradun’s DIN & order No. ITBA/REV/F/REV5/2020-21/1031618340(1) dated 19.03.2021, in proceedings u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

It transpires during the course of hearing that the assessee/appellant is aggrieved against the learned PCIT’s section 263 revision directions holding the Assessing Officer’s regular assessment framed on 15.11.2017; as an erroneous one, since having not carried out the necessary detailed enquiries regarding land advance(s) received to Rs.75,00,000/- and agricultural income, involving varying sums, respectively.

4.

It is in this factual backdrop that we notice from the learned PCIT’s revision order itself at page 1 that the assessee’s case involved “limited” scrutiny inter alia regarding the twin issues of mismatch in sales turnover and substantial increase in capital than that of advances received and agricultural income (supra). That being the case, we are of the considered view in this factual backdrop that once the Assessing Officer could not have travelled beyond the scope of limited scrutiny, his regular assessment framed on 15.11.2017 could neither be termed as an an erroneous one nor that causing prejudice to the interest of the Revenue going by PCIT vs. Weilburger Coatings (India) (P.) Ltd (2023) 155 taxmann.com 580 (Cal). We thus hold that the learned PCIT has erred in law and on facts in exercising his section 263 revision jurisdiction in the facts involved in the assessee’s case; in very terms. The same stands reversed therefore.

More judgments on Section 263

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →