M/S. NEWAGE INDUSTRIES,WADHWAN CITY, DIST. : SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The assessee's counsel submitted that the AO, after making due inquiries as directed by the PCIT's order under Section 263, accepted the assessee's stand and deleted the proposed additions. Therefore, the assessee wished to withdraw the appeal.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed a bad debt of Rs. 67,22,537/-. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) initiated proceedings under Section 263, considering the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue due to lack of proper inquiry by the Assessing Officer (AO).
What were the issues?
Whether the original assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, and the adequacy of inquiry by the AO.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT
Before: Ms. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal
आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad-3 in Appeal no. ITBA/REV/F/REV5/2020-21/1031880709(1) vide order dated 29/03/2021 passed for the assessment year 2015-16.
Page No 2 M/s. Newage Industries vs. Pr. CIT-3
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2015-16 on 28.09.2015 declaring total income at Rs. 95,17,510/-. Thereafter, the case was selected for Limited scrutiny through CASS. Assessment order was finalized u/s. 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 26.12.2017 assessing total income at returned income of Rs.95,17,510/-. On verification of P&L account, it was noticed that the assessee firm had debited EMD/PBG/SD not recoverable of Rs. 67,22,537/- (bad debt). However, in respect of the above claim, no details were found to be called for or submitted by the assessee in respect of this claim with any cogent evidence before the Ld. Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings. In the absence of such any enquiry by Ld. Assessing Officer and any details/documentary evidences being filed the assessee in respect of the above claim, notice u/s 263 of the Act was issued by Ld. Pr. CIT to disallow the above amount. In response thereto, the assessee filed response dated 26-03-2021 and further reply dated 27-03-2021 before Ld. Pr. Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. Pr. CIT rejected the assessee’s contention and held the assessment order as being erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. We had heard the matter on 02-03-2022 and kept the file for orders.
However, on perusing the file of the assessee while drafting the order, we required clarity on certain factual aspects, and accordingly we fixed the case for clarifications, which was heard on 28-04-2022. However, during the course of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that pursuant to order passed by Ld. Pr. CIT setting aside the original assessment order directing the Ld. Assessing Officer to pass order after making requisite Page No 3 M/s. Newage Industries vs. Pr. CIT-3 inquiries and proper verification, the Ld. Assessing Officer in assessment proceedings accepted the stand of the assessee after making due inquiries as directed, and passed assessment order deleting the additions proposed in the order passed u/s 263 of the Act order. Accordingly, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee wishes to withdraw the appeal. Ld. Counsel for the assessee also placed on record the assessment order dated 28-03-2022 passed by Ld. Assessing Officer pursuant to directions of the 263 order. The Ld. Departmental Representative also did not object to the withdrawal of appeal. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn.
Order pronounced in the open court on 28-04-2022
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 →- Sharad Ashok Agarwal vs. State Of Maharashtra Through G.P. And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Md. Akhtar Ansari, Proprietor Of M/S Indian Associates vs. State Of Jharkhand, Through Commissioner Of State Tax, Commercial Tax Dept.Jharkhand · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Amarjothi Granites (INDIA) PVT. LTD., Berhampur, Ganjam vs. The Commissioner, Commercial Tax And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Mishka Steels LLP And Anr. vs. The Superintendent Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Cx, Range-Ii, Behala Div. And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Limited vs. Union Of INDIAGujarat · 14 Oct 2026