RADHESHYAM AGARWAL,BHOPAL vs. THE PCIT, CENTRAL, BHOPAL , BHOPAL
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was not justified. It reasoned that the AO's failure to explicitly mention penalty proceedings or conduct further inquiries did not automatically render the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.
What were the facts?
During a survey, the assessee accepted undisclosed income from discrepancies in cash, stock, and interest. The Assessing Officer (AO) accepted these declarations in the assessment order but did not levy tax under Section 115BBE. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) revised the order under Section 263, deeming it erroneous and prejudicial to revenue, directing the AO to reframe the assessment and initiate penalty proceedings.
What were the issues?
Whether the PCIT was justified in revising the assessment order under Section 263 solely because the AO did not initiate penalty proceedings or conduct further inquiries regarding surrendered income.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 263,Section 115BBE,Section 69,Section 69A,Section 271AAC(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show listHide 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.
- Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT2,943 citing109 Taxmann 66 · 2000 · SC · Read judgment
- Rajmandir Estates Private Limited v. Pr. CIT131 citing386 ITR 162 · 2016 · HC
- PCIT v. Deccan Jewellera (P) Ltd.20 citing132 Taxmann.com 73 · 2021 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI B.M. BIYANI & SHRI PARESH M JOSHI
Per Paresh M Joshi, J.M.: This is an Appeal filed by the Assessee under section 253 of the income tax Act 1961[herein after referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity] before this tribunal. The Assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number:-ITBA /REV/F/REV5/2024-25/1074524226(1) dated 15.03.2025 passed by the Ld. PCIT(Central), Bhopal, u/s 263 of the Act which is herein after referred to as the "Impugned order". The Relevant Assessment year is 2018-19 and the corresponding previous year period is from 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2018. 2. Factual Matrix
1 That as and by way of an Assessment order passed under section 147/143(3) of the Act, the Assessee's total income exigible to tax was com
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.
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
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Vimal Harilal Baldania, Gandhidham vs The ITO Ward 2, GandhidhamITA 770/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Giri Paints vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 15 Oct 2026
- Rahul Radheshyam Chauhan vs. Union Of INDIA Thru The Sec. Ministry Of Law And Justice And OrsBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- S.Murugesan vs. The Deputy Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Annai Garden vs. The Commercial Tax Officer / The State Tax OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Yadeshwar Mallekedi vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 15 Oct 2026