APURV KUMAR,VARANASI vs. PCIT, VARANASI
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer, after the revision order, conducted an inquiry and allowed the assessee's claim based on submitted documents. Therefore, the assessee sought to withdraw the appeal.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against a revision order passed under section 263. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer, acting on the revision order, accepted the assessee's claim regarding an investment in a specified capital bond.
What were the issues?
Whether the appeal filed against the revision order has become infructuous after the Assessing Officer's subsequent order accepting the assessee's claim.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CIRCUIT BENCH, VARANASI
O R D E R PER VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the revision order dated 31.3.2021 passed by the Pr. CIT, under section 263 of Income Tax Act, for the assessment year 2017-18.
At the time of hearing, the learned AR of the assessee has submitted that the Assessing Officer has passed the order dated 27.9.2021 in pursuance to the revision order of Pr. CIT under section 263 and accepted the claim of the assessee regarding investment made in the specified capital bond account of Rs. 45,00,000/-. Thus, the learned AR has submitted that after the order passed by the Assessing Officer in pursuance to the revision order passed under section 263, the assessee does not want to pursue the present appeal and seeks permission to withdraw the same.
The learned Sr. DR has raised no objection, if the appeal of the assessee is dismissed being withdrawn.
We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. At the outset, we note that the Assessing Officer has passed the order dated 27.9.2021 in pursuance to the revision order of the Pr. CIT in para 2 and 3 as under:- “2. The Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Allahabad has reviewed the case and treated this assessment order as erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and passed the Order u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 31/03/2021 stating that the AO has completely over looked the requirement of relevant provision and accepted the claim of the assessee without supporting evidence of such investment in specified capital bond of Rs. 45,00,000/- while passing the order u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 12/03/2019. 3. Further, notice u/s 142(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 28/06/2021 was issued through e-proceeding. In reply to the above notice, the assessee furnished the paper of specified capital bond account of Rs. 45,00,000/-. On verification of the said paper, it is found that the assessee has purchased the Specified REC bonds of Rs. 45,00,000/-. Hence the claim of Rs. 45,00,000/- invested in specified Capital bond is correct and the same is allowed.”
Thus, it is clear that the Pr. CIT while passing the impugned order under section 263 directed the AO to make fresh assessment de novo as per law, after giving due and reasonable opportunity and after investing complete facts. The AO in the order passed pursuant to 263 order has conducted the enquiry and found that the assessee furnished papers and specified capital bond account which reveals that the assessee purchase the specified the REC (Rural Electric Company) bonds of Rs.45,00,000/- and consequently allowed the claim of the assessee. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee allowed to withdraw the present appeal and consequentially the present appeal of the assessee is being dismissed as withdrawn.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed being withdrawn.
Order was pronounced in the open court after a conclusion of hearing on 07.07.2022.
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 →- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Fasil Hussain Shah vs. Ut Of J And K Th Commissioner Secretary TO Government Finance Department And OthersJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S. Devkinandan Traders vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Dixit Medical Agencies vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026