Bhaskar Arvind Kumar Hingad, Mumbai vs. Asstt CIT-24(1), Mumbai
In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed
ITA 692/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2014-15
Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.692/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) Bhaskar Arvind Kumar बिधम/ Acit-24(1) Hingad 601, 6Th Floor, Piramal Vs. Flat No. 1, Ratnakar Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Building, 26 Narayan Mumbai-400012. Dhabolkar Road, Mumbai- 400006. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacph2812F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue By: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29/08/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-20 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”], Mumbai Dated 31.03.2022 For Assessment Year 2014- 15 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).
For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263
…fy and find out whether the order passed is erroneous or not." 20. The above view is also supported by the following decisions: - DIT v. Jyoti Foundation (357 ITR 388) (Delhi HC) - CIT v. Ashish Rajpal (320 ITR 674) (Delhi HC) - CIT v. R.K. Construction Co. (313 ITR 65) (Guj HC) 21. As discussed above, we now proceed to examine whether for the five (5) reasons inter alia set out in the SCN, the Ld. Pr. CIT was able to justify his finding in the impugned order that the AO's order was 25 A.Y. 2014-15 Bhaskar Arvind Kumar Hingad indeed erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and thereby necessita…
