CITVs. Anil Kumar Sharma, 335 ITR 83 (Del HC); Ramakant Singh v. CIT

Navinchandra K. Patel, Surat vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.57/Srt/2021 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Court Hearing) Navinchandra K. Patel, Vs. The Pcit-1, Surat. 5, Kaaliytawadi Faliya, At Post Saniya Hemad, Surat-395006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Birpp6292D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 02/02/2023 10/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Surat (In Short “Ld. Pcit”], Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), Dated 31.03.2021. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Has Erred In Passing Revisionary Order U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act Setting Aside The Order Of Ld. Assessing Officer Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dated 24.11.2017 For The Year Under Consideration Although Said Order Is Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Has Erred In Observing That Order Passed By Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Act Is Erroneous On The Ground That Indexed Cost Of Acquisition Of Property Is Under Assessed By Rs.2,12,58,035/-. 3. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Has Erred In Observing That Order

…n also powers under section 263 of the Act cannot be invoked under the facts and circumstances of the case. This position is further supported by the following judicial pronouncements;  CIT Vs. Anil Kumar Sharma, 335 ITR 83 (Del HC);  Ramakant Singh Vs. CIT 140 TTJ 41 (Patna ITAT);  Vodafone Essar South Ltd. vs CIT 141 TTJ 84 (Del ITAT);  CIT Vs. Developement Credit Bank Ltd. 323 ITR 206 (2010);  CIT vs Gabrial India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (1993);  Russel Properties Pvt Ltd Vs. CIT 109 ITR 229 (Cal);  CIT Vs. Vikash Polymers 341 ITR 537 (Del); 18. In this regard, we also place reliance on the judgment of Delhi H…