DEVENDRA HASTIMAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT 16, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3550/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 December 2019AY 2011-123 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 Pr. CIT's order under Section 263 was bad in law as it was passed beyond the prescribed time limit. This was based on the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT v. ICICI Bank Ltd., which states that the limitation period for Section 263 runs from the original assessment order if the issue was covered therein and not part of a reassessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against an order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CIT) under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. The Pr. CIT had sought to revise an assessment order concerning donations made by the assessee. The assessee contended that the Pr. CIT's order was time-barred.

What were the issues?

Whether the Pr. CIT's order under Section 263 was passed within the prescribed time limit. Whether the Pr. CIT erred in considering the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 35(1)(ii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI

Before: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH & SHRI N.K. PRADHAN

For Appellant: Mr. Devendra Jain, AR
For Respondent: Mr. Narendra Singh Jangpangi, CIT- DR
Hearing: 18/12/2019Pronounced: 18/12/2019

ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2011-12. The appeal is directed against the order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act 1961, (the ‘Act’) passed by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-16, Mumbai [in short ‘Pr. CIT’]. 2. The grounds of appeal filed by the assessee read as under:

1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Pr. CIT has erred in passing the order u/s 263, beyond the time limit specified in section 263(2).

Devendra Hastimal Jain

More judgments on Section 263

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →