ANSHUL JAIN,MAINPURI vs. PCIT-1, AGRA, AGRA

ITA 129/AGR/2023Status: DisposedITAT Agra31 August 2026AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)7 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) acted in a hurried manner, violating the principles of natural justice by not providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The order passed under Section 263 was deemed bad in law.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged an order passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, alleging lack of proper notice and opportunity to be heard. The revisionary notice was issued with a very short hearing date, and the assessee claimed to be unaware of the proceedings until a consequential order was passed.

What were the issues?

Whether the revisionary proceedings under Section 263 were initiated and conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice, particularly regarding the adequacy of notice and opportunity to be heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH: AGRA

Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

For Respondent: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR
Hearing: 21/05/2025Pronounced: 24/06/2025

[ PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Agra [‘Ld. PCIT’ in short] u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ in short) dated 31.03.2022 for Assessment Year 2017-18. Anshul Jain vs. PCIT

2.

The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:

“1. That, the notice under section 263 dated 28-03-2022, was not served upon the appellant, as it was neither served on person, nor on the registered e-mail as shown on his e-filing portal.

2.

That, the order under section 263 dated 31-03-2022, was not served upon the appellant, as it was neither served on person, nor on the registered e-mail as shown on his e-filing portal.

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 →