SARITA KONDA,BHILAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

ITA 62/RPR/2022Status: DisposedITAT Raipur28 April 2023AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)13 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that while the receipts might not be unexplained cash credits under Section 68, the AO's summary acceptance without verification rendered his order erroneous. Therefore, the PCIT's action under Section 263 was upheld for limited verification of the nature and source of these receipts.

What were the facts?

The assessee received substantial cash deposits in her bank account, including Rs. 16,31,000/- due to divorce and Rs. 15,02,867/- as a death claim of her ex-husband. The Assessing Officer (AO) initially taxed these amounts as income. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) invoked Section 263, considering the AO's order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.

What were the issues?

Whether the PCIT was justified in invoking Section 263 to revise the AO's order, and whether the receipts from divorce settlement and death claim were correctly treated by the AO.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 143(3),Section 68,Section 115BBE,Section 56(2)(v)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR

Before: SHRI RAVISH SOOD & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CA
For Respondent: Smt. Ila M Parmar, CIT-DR
Hearing: 11.04.2023Pronounced: 28.04.2023

PER RAVISH SOOD, JM: The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1 (for short ‘Pr. CIT’) u/s.263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act’) dated 02.03.2022, which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O. u/s.143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act’), dated 30.11.2019 for A.Y. 2017-18. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us:

“1. Ld. Pr. CIT erred in invoking the pro

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 →