M/S. PARISHRAM BUILDERS,,VERAVAL vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1,, RAJKOT

ITA 98/RJT/2021Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 September 2025AY 2015-16Bench: the hearing of appeal. 2. The relevant material facts, as culled out from the material on record, are as follows. The assessee, before us, is a partnership- firm and engaged in the business of civil construction, such as roads and buildings on contract basis mainly for various government bodies. The assessee e-filed its return of income for the assessment year (AY) under consideration, on 31.10.2015, declaring total income at Rs. 82,64,950/-. The assessee's case was selected for Limited Scr1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted sufficient inquiry and verified the sundry creditors with documentary evidence, including confirmations and ledger accounts. The Tribunal found that the Pr. CIT's action was based on a change of opinion and was therefore not sustainable under Section 263.

What were the facts?

The assessee's assessment for AY 2015-16 was finalized by the AO accepting the returned income. The Pr. CIT initiated proceedings under Section 263, citing inadequate verification of sundry creditors and other issues. The assessee contended that the AO had conducted sufficient inquiry and that the Pr. CIT's action amounted to a change of opinion.

What were the issues?

Whether the Pr. CIT correctly exercised revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 when the Assessing Officer had already conducted inquiry and accepted the assessee's submissions. Whether the Pr. CIT's action was based on a change of opinion rather than identifying an erroneous and prejudicial order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 143(3),Section 40A(2)(b)

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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT

Before: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI & SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA

For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Hearing: 07/07/2025Pronounced: 29/09/2025

Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member: By way of this appeal, the assessee has challenged the correctness of the order dated 10.02.2021 passed by the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (in short “Ld PCIT”) under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for the assessment year 2015-16. Grievances raised by the assessee, which, being interconnected, will be taken up together, are as follows:

“1. The grounds of appeal mentioned hereunder are withou

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 →