KUSH GOOJAR,GWALIOR vs. PR CIT, GWLAIOR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 82/AGR/2023Status: DisposedITAT Agra21 February 2025AY 2018-19Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had indeed conducted a detailed inquiry into the salary expenditure, issuing a notice under Section 142(1) and receiving a reply, along with supporting documents. Therefore, the PCIT's revision direction was not justified.

What were the facts?

The PCIT invoked Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to revise the Assessing Officer's assessment order. The PCIT held that the Assessing Officer's assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue due to unverified salary expenditure.

What were the issues?

Whether the PCIT's revision under Section 263 was justified when the Assessing Officer had conducted a proper inquiry into the salary expenditure during the assessment proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 143(3),Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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, AGRA BENCH, AGRA

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: CA &
Hearing: 12.02.2025Pronounced: 21.02.2025

Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:

1.

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2018-19, arises against the PCIT, Gwalior’s DIN & order No. ITBA/REV/M/REV5/2022-23/1051192424(1) dated 23.03.2023, in proceedings u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3. It emerges during the course of hearing that the learned PCIT’s impugned section 263 revision directions have held the Assessing Officer’s section 143(3) regular assessment framed ./2023 2 Kush Goojar on 03.12.2020, as an erroneous are causing prejudice to the interest of the Revenue, on the ground that the assessee’s salary expenditure of Rs.14,40,000/- remained unverified in scrutiny.

3.

A perusal of the case records on the other hand reveals that the learned Assessing Officer had indeed carried out his detailed enquiry (ies) during scrutiny raising the separate issue of the assessee’s salary expenditure, in his section 142(1) notice dated 15.10.2020 (page 12) which stood duly replied on 28.10.2020 (page 15), respectively. Coupled with this, the assessee had further filed all the relevant details of his employees concerned (page 25) before both the learned lower authorities. The Revenue’s averments supporting the learned PCIT’s section 263 revision direction deserve to be rejected n light of Malabar Industries Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83(SC).

We order accordingly since it is no more found to be an instance of ‘no enquiry’ as it is projected at the Revenue’s behest.

Ordered accordingly.

ITA No. 82/Agr./2023 3 Kush Goojar

5.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed.

Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 21/02/2025.

More judgments on Section 263

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →