HASRAT ULLAH KHAN,ALIGARH vs. PCIT-1, AGRA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 38/AGR/2021Status: DisposedITAT Agra10 February 2025AY 2010-11Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the revenue's arguments supporting the revision directions were unsustainable. The Pr.CIT's action was based on a self-signed list of payees and a search statement, lacking corroborative material to substantiate alleged capitation fee and cash payments. The Tribunal noted that section 292C(1) of the Act does not apply in this case.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for assessment year 2010-11 challenges the revision directions issued by the Pr.CIT under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Pr.CIT believed the Assessing Officer's assessment was erroneous for not verifying payments made by the assessee for his daughter's admission.

What were the issues?

Whether the Pr.CIT was justified in issuing revision directions under Section 263 based on uncorroborated evidence and a search statement?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 263,Section 132(4),Section 292C(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “DB” BENCH, AGRA

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL

Hearing: 10.02.2025Pronounced: 10.02.2025

O R D E R

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2010-11 arises against Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) (in short, the “Pr.CIT(A)”), Agra- 1’s DIN & order No. ITBA/REV/F/REV5/2020-21/1031700272(1) dated 23.03.2021, in proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

Hasrat Ullah Khan 3. It emerges during the course of hearing that the PCIT’s section 263 revision directions have treated the Assessing Officer “regular” assessment dated 28.12.2017 as erroneous one causing prejudice to the interest of the Revenue on the ground that he had failed to verify the assesse’s payment made for his daughter’s admission in M/s Santosh Medical College.

4.

Learned CIT-DR vehemently submits that the impugned revision directions have rightly issued as the assessment herein had been reopened based on the JD(IT)’s investigation report indicating payments made by the assessee involving capitation fee etc.

5.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee pleadings and Revenue’s foregoing vehement contentions. Learned PCIT has referred to a list such alleged payments forming part of the case record that the impugned addition ought to have been made by the Assessing Officer and his failure to this effect attracts Section 263 revision jurisdiction.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →