MOHMEDAMIN MOHMEDUMAR GENERAL,SURAT vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE), SURAT

ITA 522/SRT/2024Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 October 2025AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA (Judicial Member), SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted sufficient inquiry by calling for details and examining the documents submitted by the assessee regarding the claim for additional depreciation. The AO had formed a possible view based on the information provided. The PCIT's opinion that the order was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue was based on a different view, which is not sufficient for revision under Section 263 if the AO has made a plausible inquiry and formed a possible opinion.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed additional depreciation on new machinery acquired and installed for manufacturing grey cloth on a job work basis. The Assessing Officer (AO) accepted the claim. The Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (PCIT) initiated revision proceedings under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, holding the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue due to alleged lack of inquiry by the AO regarding the additional depreciation claim.

What were the issues?

Whether the PCIT was justified in invoking Section 263 of the Act to revise an assessment order when the AO had conducted a plausible inquiry regarding the claim for additional depreciation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 32(1)(iia),Section 263,Section 143(3),Section 144B,Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(10)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.

Before: SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CA
For Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, CIT-DR
Hearing: 29/07/2025Pronounced: 28/10/2025

PER BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, AM: This appeal by the assessee, emanates from the order passed under section (u/s) 263 of the Income-tax Act (in short, ‘the Act’) by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (in short, ‘PCIT’) for assessment year (AY) 2018-19, dated 07.03.2024. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows:

“1. On the facts and in circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Pr. CIT has erred in passing the order u/s. 263, although the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the I.T. Act, 1961 was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.

2.

On

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 32(1)(iia)

All 553 judgments and leading authorities on Section 32(1)(iia) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →