M/S, PAWAN PUTRA NIRMAN PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE PR. CIT, KOLKATA -1, KOLKATA
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT erred in invoking Section 263 as the AO had applied his mind to the issue of the deduction, and there was no material to suggest that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The CIT's revisionary power was therefore not justified.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a company engaged in share trading and investments, filed its return for AY 2008-09 declaring a total income of Rs. 1,364. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated proceedings under Section 147 based on a deduction of Rs. 40,000 paid to an unspecified party.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT was justified in invoking Section 263 when the AO had already applied his mind to the deduction claimed by the assessee, and if the assessment order was indeed erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH : KOLKATA
Before: Hon’ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, JM & Shri Waseem Ahmed, AM]
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, JM & Shri Waseem Ahmed, AM] Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/s. Pawan Putra Nirman Pvt. Ltd. -vs.- The Princpal C.I.T., Kolkata-1 Kolkata Kolkata [PAN : AAECP 4378 F] (Respondent) (Appellant) For the Appellant : Shri V.N.Purohit, FCA For the Respondent : Shri Goulen Hangshing, CIT Date of Hearing : 17.04.2017. Date of Pronouncement : 03.05.2017. ORDER Per N.V.Vasudevan, JM This is an appeal by the Assessee against the order dated 11.03.2013 of C.I.T- Kolkata-1, Kolkata passed u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) relating to A.Y.2008-09.
The facts and circumstances under which order u/s 263 of the Act was passed by the CIT are a follows :- The Assessee is a company engaged in the business of trading in shares and making investments. For A.Y. 2008-09, the Assessee filed return of income on 03.05.2008 declaring total income of Rs.1,364/-. The same was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter proceeding u/s 147 of the Act was initiated on the ground that the Assessee’s claim for deduction of a sum of Rs.40,000/- which was paid to Registrar of Companies for increase in Authorised capital was capital expenditure and ought to have been allowed as deduction while computing total income of the Assessee and to that extent income has escaped assessment which had to be brought to tax. The Assessee accepted the proposal to disallow the proportionate expenditure of Rs.8000/- claimed as M/s. Pawan Putra Nirman Pvt. Ltd. A.Yr.2008-09 deduction in the relevant previous year. The AO passed an order u/s 143(3) r.w.sec. 147 of the Act dated 29.04.2010 determining total income of the Assessee at Rs.15,764/-.
The CIT in exercise of his powers u/s 263 of the Act passed the impugned order directing the AO to make thorough enquiries with regard to receipt of share capital and huge share premium by the Assessee during the relevant previous year in the light of the provisions of section 68 of the Act. According to CIT the order of the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue because the AO failed to make proper enquiries on receipt of share capital by the Assessee which, given the facts and circumstances of the case called for a thorough and detailed examination. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT , the Assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal.
We have heard the rival submissions. It is seen from the impugned order that the notice to the Assessee in Sec.263 proceedings were served by affixure at the old address viz. No.11A, Maharishi Debendra Road, 4th Floor, Kolkata-700007. The new address of the Assessee is at 32-A, Ramakrishna Samadhi Road, Kolkata-700054. It is also claimed by the Assessee that the issued and subscribed share capital was 148500 equity shares of Rs.10/- each at a premium of Rs.177.20 ps. Per share making it in all a sum of Rs.2,78,00,000/- whereas the CIT in the impugned order has stated that the receipt of share capital and share premium by the Assessee during the previous year was Rs.5,45,50,000/-.
We are of the view that it would be in the interest of justice, considering the facts and circumstances of the case to set aside the impugned order and direct the CIT to pass a fresh order after affording assessee opportunity of being heard. We order accordingly and allow the appeal for statistical purpose.
M/s. Pawan Putra Nirman Pvt. Ltd. A.Yr.2008-09 6. In the result the appeal by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the Court on 03.05.2017.
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 →- Deepak Kumar Daiya vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.Calcutta · 4 Nov 2026
- Mohammed Fazil vs. State Of ChhattisgarhChhattisgarh · 4 Nov 2026
- Tvl. Devaerakkam Mercy Mary vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 4 Nov 2026
- Procter And Gamble Health LTD vs. Union Of INDIATelangana · 4 Nov 2026
- M/S Ritika Ispat PVT. Limited, Balanda, Sundargarh vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods And Services Tax, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 4 Nov 2026