CONE CRAFT PAPER PVT LTD,DELHI vs. PCIT-1, DELHI

ITA 3592/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 January 2026AY 2021-221 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the PCIT wrongly assumed jurisdiction under Section 263 as the Assessing Officer had taken a plausible view permissible in law. The assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue, and the PCIT's reliance on certain case laws was distinguishable.

What were the facts?

The assessee company made substantial purchases from suppliers who were non-filers or had low turnover. The Assessing Officer disallowed a portion of these purchases as bogus. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax invoked Section 263, considering the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue, proposing disallowance of the entire bogus purchases.

What were the issues?

Whether the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax erred in invoking Section 263 of the Income Tax Act when the Assessing Officer had taken a plausible view, and if the assessment order was indeed erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 69C,Section 115BB

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, DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN

For Respondent: Ms. Amisha S Gupt, CIT DR
Hearing: 10/12/2025Pronounced: 29/01/2026

PER RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (J.M.):

1.

The appeal is directed against the order dated 19.03.25 passed by Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi [Hereinafter referred to as the “PCIT”] under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to ‘the Act’) wherein the assessment order dated

1 Cone Craft Paper Pvt. Ltd., Delhi 23.12.2022 was held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and Assessing Officer (‘AO’) was directed to pass a fresh order taking necessary remedial action as per direction of the Ld. PCIT.

2.

The facts in brief as culled out from the order of the authorities below are that the appellant/assessee is a

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.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

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.

More judgments on Section 263

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →