CIT v. Amitabh Bachchan

384 ITR 200Supreme Court of India2016#311 most cited

What is CIT v. Amitabh Bachchan authority for?

The Commissioner's revisional power under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act is not limited to the points specified in the show-cause notice, nor is the exercise of this power contingent upon issuing a show-cause notice.

264

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Amitabh Bachchan · Amitabh Bachchan SC 2016 · Section 263 Income Tax Act · PCIT revisional power · scope of show cause notice u/s 263 · Commissioner not confined to SCN terms · power not contingent on show-cause notice · assessment erroneous and prejudicial · inadequate enquiry revision · Malabar Industrial · 384 ITR 200 · Revision under Section 263

Also reported as

69 Taxmann.com 170286 CTR 113

Sections most often in play

Section 263Section 143(3)Section 147Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 148Section 143(2)Section 151
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

lack of enquiryprejudicial to interest of revenueinadequate enquirysection 263(1)malabar industrialrevision under section 263revision u/s 263assessment order erroneouserroneous and prejudicialnon application of mindsection 263section 26

Judgments citing CIT v. Amitabh Bachchan

Bhupinder Singh Son of Sh. Gurmukh Singh, Punjab vs. The Pr Commissioner of Income Tax Chandigarh-1, C.R Building Himalaya Marg, Sector 17-E, Chandigarh, Punjab

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 825/CHANDI/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Nov 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 144Section 253Section 263

…to be dismissed - Held, yes [Para 2]” (ii) LOIL Continental Foods Ltd Vs. PCIT in ITA No. 577/Chd/2017(Chd Trib) “The Id. CIT made reference to the Explanation-2 to Section 263 and also decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Amitabhachan, 384 ITR 200. It is pertinent to note that Explanation-2 of section 263(1) would help the Id. Commissioner to take cognizance under section 263 of the Act, if no inquiry was conducted by the AO before finalizing the assessment order. No doubt the assessment orders are very brief, and did not have elaborate discussion on these issues, but it is pertinent to be…

Max Hospitals and Allied Services Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Mumbai -3, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 2907/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2018-19 Max Hospitals & Principal Allied Services Commissioner Of 401, 4Th Floor, Income Tax Mumbai- 3 Man Excellenza, Room No.612, Vs. S. V. Road, 6Th Floor, Vile Parle (W.), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- 400056 Maharishi Karve Road, Pan: Aagcr9198D Mumbai- 400020. Appellant : Respondent

For Appellant: RespondentFor Respondent: Ms. Sanyogia Nagpal (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 56(2)(viib)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Mumbai “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2018-19 Max Hospitals and Principal Allied Services Commissioner of 401, 4th Floor, Income Tax Mumbai- 3 Man Excellenza, Room No.612, Vs. S. V. Road, 6th Floor, Vile Parle (W.), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- 400056 Maharishi Karve Road, PAN: AAGCR9198D Mumbai- 400020. Appellant : Respondent Present for : Assessee by : Shri Dr. K. Shivaram a/w Shri Rahul K. Hakani Revenue by : Ms. Sanyogia Nagpal (CIT-DR) Date of Hearing : 21.11.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 30…

T V Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Limited, Madurai vs. DCIT, CC - 2, Madurai

Appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1803/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1803/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-2014. M/S. T.V. Sundram Iyengar & The Deputy Commissioner Sons Private Limited, Vs. Of Income Tax, No.7B, Tvs Building, Corporate Circle 2, West Veli Street. Madurai. Madurai 625 001. Pan: Aabct 0159K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35DSection 391

…rger expenses and there was no necessity of mentioning this point separately in the show cause notice. This submission finds support from the ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Mumbai versus Amitabh Bacchan reported in 384 ITR 200 (SC). The Hon'ble Apex Court held that Section 263 does not require any specific show cause notice detailing specific grounds on which revision of assessment order is tentatively being proposed He need not confine himself to the terms of notice and foreclosing consideration of any other issue or question of fact. He is free exercise his jurisdict…

Harsahaimal Shiamlal Jewellers Pvivate Limited, Bareilly vs. PCIT(Central), Bareilly

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

ITA 65/LKW/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Oct 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Harsahaimal Shiamlal Jewellers Shri Vimalendu Verma, Private Limited, 148, Civil Lines, Vs. Pcit (Central), Lucknow, U.P. Bareilly, U.P.-243001 Pan:Aacch3785L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. S.H. Usmani, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2024 O R D E R Per Sh. Nikhil Choudhary: This Is An Appeal Filed Against The Order Under Section 263 Of The Act, Passed By The Ld. Pcit, Central ,Lucknow On 17.02.2022, Setting Aside The Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer, Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act On 29.07.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred, Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.H. Usmani, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW ‘B’ BENCH, LUCKNOW BEFORE SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A.Y. 2017-18 Harsahaimal Shiamlal Jewellers Shri Vimalendu Verma, Private Limited, 148, Civil Lines, vs. PCIT (Central), Lucknow, U.P. Bareilly, U.P.-243001 PAN:AACCH3785L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue by: Sh. S.H. Usmani, CIT DR Date of hearing: 06.08.2024 Date of pronouncement: 25.10.2024 O R D E R PER SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This is an appeal filed against the order under section 263 of the Act, pas…

Dasrathsinh Ghanshyamsinh Chudasama, Bhavnagar vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax-6, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 223/AHD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 263Section 68

…tice issued in the sense that in paragraph no.4 there is no categorical finding that tax should be calculated at 30% which has been the finding of the PCIT in his 263 order. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Amitab Bachchan, 384 ITR 200, decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Malabar Industries vs. CIT [2000] 109 Taxman 66 (243 ITR 83) 6. The Ld. DR submitted that the Assessing Officer in the Assessment Order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act should have been made addition in consonance of Section 68 of the Act and thereby the tax should have been calculated as per…

Exotic Realtors and Developers, Chandigarh vs. Pr.CIT-1, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 189/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 253Section 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “ए” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL MODE "ी कृणव"त सहाय, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी परेश म. जोशी, "याियक सद"य BEFORE: SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM & SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI, JM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 189/Chd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 EXOTIC REALTORS AND बनाम The Pr. CIT-1 DEVELOPERS Chandigarh C.A AJAY KUMAR JAIN C/O AJAY JAIN AND CO. SCO 80-81, 4TH FLOOR SECTOR-17C CHANDIGARH "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AADFE9430F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Ajay Jain, C.A राज" की ओर से…

M/S. Ganga Electricals, Nashik vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax.-1, Nashik

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 215/PUN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ustrial Co Ltd. Vs CIT [2000] 109 Taxman 66 (SC) / [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC)/ (2000) 159 CTR 1 (SC) [10-02-2000] 11 7. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of CIT, Mumbai Vs Amitabh Bachchan [2016] 69 taxmann.com 170 (SC) / [2016] 240 Taxman 221 (SC) / [2016] 384 ITR 200 (SC)/ (2016) 286 CTR 113 (SC) [11-05-2016] 8. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of CIT Vs Paville Projects (P) Ltd. [2023] 149 Taxmann.com 115 (SC) [06-04-2023] 9. Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in case of Success Tours & Travels (P) Ltd Vs ITO, Ward 9(4), Kolkata [2017] 80 Taxmann.com 263 (Calcutta) / [2017] 247 Taxman 109 (Calcutta) / [201…

Shri. Santhakumar Damodaran Nadar, Trivandrum vs. The ITO, Ward -1(3), Trivandrum

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 950/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Cochin20 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Soundararajan K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. R.Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Sri. Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

…closed income, making an addition qua the said deposits in the assessee’s bank account; his action being, much less in conflict, in conformity with the said Board Circular. 7. The reference by the ld. Pr. CIT to the decision in CIT v. Amitabh Bachchan [2016] 384 ITR 200 (SC) for seeking said extension, is misplaced. The Apex Court in that case reiterated the law explained by it in Gita Devi Agarwal v. CIT [1970] 76 ITR 496 (SC) and CIT v. Electro House [1971] 82 ITR 824 (SC), that the notice u/s.263 is not a jurisdictional notice and, therefore, the scope of revision, subject to grant of opportunity, is not limi…

Sampark Management Cousultancy LLP, Noida vs. Pr, CIT, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1879/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2017-18 Sampark Management Vs. Pr.Cit, Noida, Consultancy Llp, Noida. A-178, Sector – 40, Noida, Uttar Pradesh- 201 301. Pan Acsfs9969E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Monika Dhami, CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…being erroneous, prejudice has been caused to the interest of the revenue, exist. An order of assessment passed by an Assessing Officer, therefore, it should not be interfered with only because another view is possible.” 13. In CIT vs. Amitabh Bachhan (2016) 384 ITR 200 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that so long as the view taken by the Assessing Officer is a possible view it ought not to be interfered with by the Commissioner merely on the ground that there is another possible view of the matter. Page 7 of 14 Sampark Management Consultancy vs. Pr.CIT 14. The Finance Act, 2015 has inserted Explanation 2…

Bajaj Housing Finance Limited, Pune vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 564/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.564/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Bajaj Housing Finance Limited, The Principal 3Rd Floor, Panchsil Tech Park, V Commissioner Of Income Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014. S Tax-3, Pune. Pan: Aadcb6018P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Percy Pardiwala & Ms.Vasanti B.Patel – Ar’S Revenue By Shri Keyur Patel – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 12/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Passed By Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pune-3 On 14.03.2023. In This Case, Assessment Order Was Passed On 26.02.2021. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : 1. Ground I: Challenging The Validity Of Revision Proceedings Under Section 263 Of The Act 1.1. The Learned Pcit Failed To Appreciate That The Assessment Order Passed By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 8, Pune (Hereinafter Referred To As Learned Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Bajaj Housing Finance Limited [A]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)

…ision for standard assets which is basically in the nature of bad & doubtful debts. 6.2 Before we discuss the case further, we will like to mentions the relevant case laws on this issue. 6.3 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Amitabh Bachchan, 384 ITR 200(SC) observed as under : “21. There can be no doubt that so long as the view taken by the Assessing Officer is a possible view the same ought not to be interfered with by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Act merely on the ground that there is another possible view of the matter. Permitting exercise of revisional power in a situation where…

Janata Grahak Madhyawarti Sahkari Sangh Maryadit, Pune vs. PCIT-4, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1273/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1273/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Janata Grahak Madhyawarti The Pr.Cit-4, Pune. Sahkari Sangh Maryadit, V 2020, Grahak Bhavan, Tilak S Road, Sadashiv Peth, Pune-411030. Pan: Aabaj7614D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Keyur Patel – Dr(Cit) Date Of Hearing 10/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 25/01/2024

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…s that the Assessing Officer has to follow orders of Higher Appellate Authority. Therefore, the assessment order cannot be held as erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 5.2 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Amitabh Bachchan, 384 ITR 200(SC) observed as under : 8 Janata Grahak Madhyawarti Sahkari Sangh Maryadit [A] “21. There can be no doubt that so long as the view taken by the Assessing Officer is a possible view the same ought not to be interfered with by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Act merely on the ground that there is another possible view of the matter. Per…

Icici Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT -2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 738/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Icici Bank Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax 2(3)(1) Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. 5Th Floor, Room No.552, Badra (East), Mumbai-400 051 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Visanji, advFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 263Section 36(1)Section 48

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JM ICICI Bank Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner of ICICI Bank Towers, Income-tax 2(3)(1) Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. 5th Floor, Room No.552, Badra (East), Mumbai-400 051 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAACI1195H Assessee by : Ms. Aarti Visanji, adv Revenue by : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, DR Date of hearing: 27-10-2023 Date of pronouncement : 25-01-2024 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 01. ITA No.738/Mum/2021, for A.Y. 2015-16 is filed by ICICI bank Lim…

M/S Punya Shree Jewellers, S4Eoni Malwa vs. The PCIT-1, Bhopal

In the result, for the reasons mentioned above, the assessment order u/s 143(3) r

ITA 154/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S Punya Shree Jewellers Pcit (1) Main Road, Seoni Malwa Bhopal Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aapfp9682A Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.12.2023

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 69

…It is this order which is upheld by the High Court. We see no reason to interfere with the order of the High Court. The Special Leave Petitions are dismissed." Page 13 of 15 ITANo.154/Ind/2023 Punya Shree Jewellers In the case of CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan 384 ITR 200 (SC) the hon'ble Supreme Court has held: "Even if AO applies mind and decides not to assess expenditure as unexplained u/s 69C because the assessee withdrew the claim for deduction, the CIT is entitled to revise the assessment on the ground that the matter needed further investigation" Reliance is also placed on the order of the hon'ble SC in Raj…

Nivesh Group, Delhi vs. Pr. CIT Delhi-15, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1176/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Ms Rano Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh. Subhra J. Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Kul Bharat, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 1176/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year: 2017-18 Nivesh Group, Vs Pr. CIT Delhi-15, Block-F, Sector 12, Delhi. Delhi – 110 075. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAMFN1544J Assessee by : Ms Rano Jain, Advocate & Ms. Mansi Jain, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Subhra J. Chakraborty, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 20.09.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 08.12.2023 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by assessee against the order of ld. Pr.CIT, Delhi-15, da…

Ganesh Gupta, Wani vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Nagpur

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 54/NAG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir Atal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Kanojiya, Sr. DR CIT
Section 142Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING At ITAT :Pune Bench BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.54/NAG./2021 Assessment Year 2016-2017 Shri Ganesh Gupta, The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur-2, Saraf Rudhra Sales, Chikhalgain, Chambers, Sadar, Nagpur. Wani – 445 304 vs Maharashtra. State of Maharashtra. PIN 440 001 PAN ABGPG6048Q Appellant Respondent For Assessee : Shri Mahavir Atal, C.A. For Revenue : Shri Kailash Kanojiya, Sr. DR CIT Date of Hearing : 22.09.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 28.11.20…

Sourabh Sharma, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Jaipur-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 240/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar (CIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263

…is contrary to the provisions of s. 263 of the Act, which specifically requires the grant of opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan (2016) 286 CTR (SC) 113: (2016) 135 DTR (SC) 73: (2016) 384 ITR 200 (SC) observed as under: "10 ...... What is contemplated by Section 263, is an opportunity of hearing to be afforded to the assessee. Failure to give such an opportunity would render the revisional order legally fragile not on the ground of lack of jurisdiction but on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice”. 5.1 Beyond the scope…

Hitesh Golchha, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Raipur

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed, in terms of our observations herein above

ITA 104/RPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.101, 102, 103 & 104/Rpr/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) V. Hitesh Golchha Acit, Prop. Of Mouli Investment, Central Circle-1 Jeevan Ganga, Near Dani Bada, Raipur Budha Para, Raipur – 492 001 Chhattisgarh [Pan: Agjpg 7698 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri B. Subramanyam, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri S. K. Meena, Cit-D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.11.2023

For Appellant: Shri B. Subramanyam, C.AFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Meena, CIT-D.R
Section 153ASection 263Section 43C

…CIT with the violation of principles of natural justice" may please be quashed. 1.6. The appellant relies on the following judicial pronouncements in support of his case which are made available for your kind consideration: A. CIT v/s Amitabh Bachchan [(2016) 384 ITR 200 (SC)1: (refer page no. 135 to 145 of paper book) Wherein it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that "what is contemplated by Section 263 is an opportunity of hearing to be afforded to the Assessee. Failure to give such an opportunity would render the revisional order legally fragile not on the ground of lack of jurisdiction but on the ground of v…

Hitesh Golchha, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Raipur

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed, in terms of our observations herein above

ITA 103/RPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.101, 102, 103 & 104/Rpr/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) V. Hitesh Golchha Acit, Prop. Of Mouli Investment, Central Circle-1 Jeevan Ganga, Near Dani Bada, Raipur Budha Para, Raipur – 492 001 Chhattisgarh [Pan: Agjpg 7698 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri B. Subramanyam, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri S. K. Meena, Cit-D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.11.2023

For Appellant: Shri B. Subramanyam, C.AFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Meena, CIT-D.R
Section 153ASection 263Section 43C

…CIT with the violation of principles of natural justice" may please be quashed. 1.6. The appellant relies on the following judicial pronouncements in support of his case which are made available for your kind consideration: A. CIT v/s Amitabh Bachchan [(2016) 384 ITR 200 (SC)1: (refer page no. 135 to 145 of paper book) Wherein it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that "what is contemplated by Section 263 is an opportunity of hearing to be afforded to the Assessee. Failure to give such an opportunity would render the revisional order legally fragile not on the ground of lack of jurisdiction but on the ground of v…

Hitesh Golchha, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Raipur

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed, in terms of our observations herein above

ITA 102/RPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.101, 102, 103 & 104/Rpr/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) V. Hitesh Golchha Acit, Prop. Of Mouli Investment, Central Circle-1 Jeevan Ganga, Near Dani Bada, Raipur Budha Para, Raipur – 492 001 Chhattisgarh [Pan: Agjpg 7698 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri B. Subramanyam, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri S. K. Meena, Cit-D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.11.2023

For Appellant: Shri B. Subramanyam, C.AFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Meena, CIT-D.R
Section 153ASection 263Section 43C

…CIT with the violation of principles of natural justice" may please be quashed. 1.6. The appellant relies on the following judicial pronouncements in support of his case which are made available for your kind consideration: A. CIT v/s Amitabh Bachchan [(2016) 384 ITR 200 (SC)1: (refer page no. 135 to 145 of paper book) Wherein it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that "what is contemplated by Section 263 is an opportunity of hearing to be afforded to the Assessee. Failure to give such an opportunity would render the revisional order legally fragile not on the ground of lack of jurisdiction but on the ground of v…

Hitesh Golchha, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Raipur

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed, in terms of our observations herein above

ITA 101/RPR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.101, 102, 103 & 104/Rpr/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) V. Hitesh Golchha Acit, Prop. Of Mouli Investment, Central Circle-1 Jeevan Ganga, Near Dani Bada, Raipur Budha Para, Raipur – 492 001 Chhattisgarh [Pan: Agjpg 7698 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri B. Subramanyam, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri S. K. Meena, Cit-D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.11.2023

For Appellant: Shri B. Subramanyam, C.AFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Meena, CIT-D.R
Section 153ASection 263Section 43C

…CIT with the violation of principles of natural justice" may please be quashed. 1.6. The appellant relies on the following judicial pronouncements in support of his case which are made available for your kind consideration: A. CIT v/s Amitabh Bachchan [(2016) 384 ITR 200 (SC)1: (refer page no. 135 to 145 of paper book) Wherein it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that "what is contemplated by Section 263 is an opportunity of hearing to be afforded to the Assessee. Failure to give such an opportunity would render the revisional order legally fragile not on the ground of lack of jurisdiction but on the ground of v…