SHRI AKHILESH JAIN,RAIPUR vs. PR. CIT-1, RAIPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the AO had made sufficient inquiries into the cash receipts and closing balance, and the assessee had provided satisfactory explanations and supporting documents. The PCIT's revisionary order was found to be based on surmise and conjecture without refuting material, and therefore, unsustainable in law.
What were the facts?
The assessee's income tax return was selected for limited scrutiny to verify the closing cash balance. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment accepting the declared income after the assessee provided explanations and documents. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) invoked revisionary powers under Section 263, deeming the assessment order erroneous due to insufficient inquiry into the cash position.
What were the issues?
Whether the PCIT's revisionary order under Section 263 was justified when the AO had already conducted inquiries and accepted the assessee's explanation regarding the cash balance.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd.990 citing203 ITR 108 · 1993 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR
Before: SHRI RAVISH SOOD & SHRI JAMLAPPA D. BATTULL
आदेश की प्रधिधलधप अग्रेधर्ि / Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent.
3. The CIT (Appeals), Raipur (C.G) 4. The Pr. CIT, Raipur (C.G) 5. दवभागीय प्रदतदनदि,आयकर अपीलीय न्यायादिकरण, रायपुर बेंच, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, Raipur Bench, Raipur. 6. गार्डफ़ाइल / Guard File. आिेशानुसार / BY ORDER,
दनजीसदचव / Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय न्यायादिकरण, रायपुर बेंच, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, Raipur ITAT-Raipur Page 10 of 10
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 →- Ramesh K Devadiga vs. Khernagar Nandadeep Co Operative Housing Society LTDBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Ramesh K Devadiga And Ors vs. Khernagar Nandadeep Co-Operative Housing Society LTD And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Permender Singh vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Abdhish Dhal Samanta, Bhubaneswar vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Kniit Net Industries Private Limited, Khurda vs. Superintendent Of CGST And Central Excise, Bhubaneswar Ii CircleOrissa · 14 Oct 2026