SHUJAAT HUSAIN,NOIDA vs. ITO, WARD-5(3)(4), NOIDA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1299/DEL/2022Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 November 2025AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)4 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 PCIT passed the order under Section 263 on the basis of available material without hearing the assessee. Observing that the assessee could not receive the notices, the Tribunal considered it essential to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an order passed by the PCIT under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary ground for appeal was that the assessee did not receive the show-cause notices issued by the PCIT, thus violating the principles of natural justice.

What were the issues?

Whether the order passed by the PCIT under Section 263 was vitiated due to non-receipt of show-cause notices by the assessee, thus violating principles of natural justice. Whether the PCIT erred in invoking Section 263 without fulfilling jurisdictional conditions.

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, DELHI BENCH, ‘G’: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY

For Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT(DR)
Hearing: 10.11.2025Pronounced: 10.11.2025

Date of Hearing 10.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 10.11.2025 ORDER PER KRINWANT SAHAY, AM:

Appeal in this case has been filed against the order dated 20.03.2022 passed by the ld. PCIT, Noida, u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) pertaining to Assessment Year 2012-13.

2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-

1.

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned order has been passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in flagrant violation of the principle of natural justice.

2.

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned order u/s 263 of the Act deserves to be quashed and set aside since the show cause notices were never served upon the Appellant.

3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax erred in wrongfully invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Income Tax Act.

4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the Ld. CIT u/s 263 is bad in law in as much as it does not fulfil the jurisdictional conditions envisaged u/s 263 of the Act or the Explanations appended thereto.

5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the Ld. CIT u/s 263 is bad in law since: - a) It was not a case where no enquiry was made by the Ld. Assessing Officer. On the contrary, the Assessment Order was passed after making detailed enquiries. b) That proceedings u/s 263 cannot be initiated on a mere change of opinion. c) Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be invoked for making fishing and roving enquiries or for re-verification. d) That the Ld. CIT failed to appreciate the concluded assessments made by the Ld. Assessing Officer in the case of Sharaf Mohd and EKO Aspire Foundation.

6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the Ld. CIT u/s 263 does not sustain even on merits.

3.

The main ground of the appeal is that the assessee did not received any show-cause notice dated 21.02.2022 and 09.03.2022 as mentioned by the ld. PCIT in the body of the order u/s 263 of the Act. Therefore, the assessee could not file its reply/written submissions on the notice issued. The ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that keeping in view of natural justice, the matter may be remanded back to the file of ld. PCIT for fresh consideration after giving adequate opportunity of being heard and for filing of written submission as required under law.

4.

Per Contra, the ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below.

5.

We have considered the findings given by ld. PCIT in the order passed u/s 263 of the Act and we find that the Ld. PCIT has passed the order on the basis of material available on record without hearing the assessee, it was because, the assessee could not receive the notices issued by the Ld. PCIT.

6.

We are of the considered view that keeping in view of natural justice, the assessee should be given adequate opportunity of being heard and for filing of written submission before ld. PCIT, which is lacking in this case. Therefore, as requested by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, we are inclined to remand this case back to the file of ld. PCIT for deciding afresh after giving adequate opportunity to the assessee of being heard as required under the law.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 10th November, 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 →