Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed three appeals against revision orders passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. These revision orders arose from ex-parte assessment orders passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre under sections 147, 144, and 144B of the Act for assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2017-18.
Held
The assessee initially sought to quash the revision orders due to the PCIT allegedly sending show-cause notices to a wrong email address. However, the assessee later withdrew the request to quash and instead prayed for setting aside the orders and remanding them for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-participation in proceedings before the PCIT and the AO.
Key Issues
Whether the revision orders passed by the PCIT under Section 263 were erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, and if the assessee's request for remand should be granted.
Sections Cited
263, 147, 144, 144B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI B.M. BIYANI & SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI
आदेश/ O R D E R
Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:
The captioned three (3) appeals are filed by same assessee against three separate revision-orders, all dated 21.02.2024 and all passed by learned PCIT, Indore-1 [“PCIT”] u/s 263 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Years [“AYs”] 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2017-18, which in turn arise out of respective assessment-orders passed by National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 & 144B of the Act.
Page 1 of 6 to 395/Ind/2024 AYs:2013-14, 2014-15 & 2017-18
Since these appeals relate to same assessee and the grounds as well as underlying facts for adjudication are also identical, they were heard together at the request of parties and are being disposed by this single order.
For the sake of reference, the grounds raised by assessee in first appeal being for AY 2013-14 are re-produced below (identical grounds have been raised in all three appeals):
“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned Principal Commissioner of Income tax (PCIT) erred in sending notices on wrong email-id i.e. itclients131411@gmail.com instead of badrisinghsisodiya53@gmail.com as stated one-filing portal. The Appellant prays that the EXPARTE order of commissioner passed without serving the notices on correct email id be directed to be quashed and set aside.
On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned PCIT erred in considering the assessment as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The Appellant prays that the assessment be held to be not erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue and consequently the revision order under section 263 be quashed.
On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned PCIT erred in considering the assessment order passed by Ld. AO as erroneous and prejudicial to interest to revenue in respect of debatable issue having difference of opinion. The appellant prays that the order of commissioner passed to be directed to be set aside.
On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned commissioner erred in initiating proceeding under section 263 of the act, when the appeal before commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had already been filed and pending on the same issue. The Appellant prays that the said order being bad in law be directed to be set aside.
Reasonable opportunity of being heard - On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned commissioner erred in making addition without providing proper opportunity of being heard. The Appellant prays that the said addition be directed to be deleted.
The Appellant craves leave to add, amend any or all grounds at the time of hearing.”
Page 2 of 6 to 395/Ind/2024 AYs:2013-14, 2014-15 & 2017-18
We have heard learned Representatives of both sides and perused the impugned orders carefully.
In these three (3) matters, the ex-parte assessments were framed by AO u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 & 144B of the Act. Subsequently, Ld. PCIT examined the records of assessment-proceeding and viewed that the assessment- orders passed by AO were erroneous in so far as they were prejudicial to the interest of revenue which attracted revisionary-jurisdiction u/s 263.
Accordingly, the PCIT issued show-cause notices u/s 263 and finally passed ex-parte revision-orders u/s 263 due to non-participation by assessee.
Aggrieved by such revision-orders, the assessee has come in present appeals before us.
In Ground No. 1, the assessee claims that the show-cause notices to invoke the proceeding of section 263 were issued by Ld. PCIT to a wrong email id “itclients131411@gmail.com” instead of assessee’s correct email id “badrisinghsisodiya53@gmail.com”. On this premise, the assessee has requested for quashing of impugned revision-orders passed by PCIT. In support of this ground, Ld. AR/assessee has also filed affidavits of assessee making the same averments as stated in Ground and the copies of show- notices issued by PCIT. However, when the bench raised a specific query to Ld. AR as to whether he is seriously pressing this Ground No.1 for quashing of impugned revision-orders, because in that event the bench would have to call a report from the office of PCIT qua the services of notices issued by Page 3 of 6 to 395/Ind/2024 AYs:2013-14, 2014-15 & 2017-18 PCIT upon assessee, Ld. AR immediately changed assessee’s claim and requested that he is not pressing for quashing of impugned revision-orders but he would only pray for setting aside the impugned orders and remanding these back to the file of PCIT for adjudication afresh.
At that stage, the Ld. DR for revenue objected against remanding of these matters to PCIT contending following reasons:
(i) The assessee remained non-participative before PCIT in the proceedings of section 263 and therefore the Ld. PCIT has rightly passed impugned revision-orders ex-parte to assessee. Thus, in this situation, the assessee does not deserve any further chance to be given for adjudication afresh.
(ii) Without prejudice to above, in the impugned revision-orders passed, the Ld. PCIT has only set aside the underlying assessment-orders passed by AO and directed the AO to re-examine the issues identified by him and to make de novo assessments after necessary verification, inquiries and investigations. Therefore, the assessee can very well make all submissions before AO in the proceedings of fresh assessment.
(iii) The underlying assessment-orders were also passed by AO ex-parte to assessee u/s 144 due to non-participation by assessee and the PCIT has identified certain errors in those assessment-orders. Therefore,
Page 4 of 6 to 395/Ind/2024 AYs:2013-14, 2014-15 & 2017-18 neither there is any mistake in the revision-orders passed by Ld. PCIT
AO nor the assessee deserves a further chance when he remained non-participative before AO during assessment-proceedings.
(iv) The assessee has already filed appeals to CIT(A) against the underlying assessment-orders and those appeals are pending before CIT(A).
Accordingly, Ld. DR requested to uphold the impugned revision-orders passed by PCIT and dismiss the request of Ld. AR/assessee for remand.
We have considered rival submissions of both sides as noted above. At first, we note that the Ld. AR for assessee is not contending for quashing of impugned orders though it is so mentioned by assessee in Ground No. 1.
Accordingly, the assessee’s claim for quashing of impugned revisions-orders is rejected.
Going further, in so far as the request of Ld. AR to remand these matters to the file of PCIT for a fresh adjudication is concerned, we find a strong merit in the submissions made by Ld. DR for revenue. We have already noted the same in earlier para No. 7 and do not wish to repeat the same to avoid duplication. Suffice it to say that the submissions made by Ld.
DR, as noted above, are acceptable to us and accordingly we do not find any justification in remanding these matters to the file of PCIT. Therefore, the request of Ld. AR for remand is rejected.
Page 5 of 6 to 395/Ind/2024 AYs:2013-14, 2014-15 & 2017-18
No other pleading is made by either side before us. Being so, we uphold the impugned revision-orders. The assessee fails in these appeals.
Resultantly, these appeals are dismissed.
Order pronounced in open court on 16/01/2026
Sd/- Sd/- (PARESH M JOSHI) (B.M. BIYANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Indore िदनांक/Dated : 16/01/2026 Patel/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPYAssistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore
Page 6 of 6