PCIT v. Delhi Airport Metro Express (P) Ltd.

398 ITR 8High Court2017#1800 most cited

What is PCIT v. Delhi Airport Metro Express (P) Ltd. authority for?

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) cannot send a matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment under Section 263(1) without first conducting an inquiry himself, especially if the basis for revision is the AO's alleged lack of inquiry. If the AO has made an inquiry and taken a plausible view, the PCIT must undertake fresh verification to demonstrate the AO's conclusion is erroneous and prejudicial.

63

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

PCIT v. Delhi Airport Metro Express · Section 263 · revision power · inadequate inquiry by AO · PCIT's duty to inquire · fresh assessment by AO · erroneous and prejudicial order · Delhi High Court 2017 · PCIT cannot merely send back · plausible view

Sections most often in play

Section 263Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 44AASection 115BBE
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 256(2)national tax tribunalsection 293section 44aesection 65asection 256(1)section 262inadequate enquirysection 65b(4)section 256section 153b(1)(b)lack of enquiry

Judgments citing PCIT v. Delhi Airport Metro Express (P) Ltd.

Winvest Holdings (I) Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands

ITA 1519/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1519/Chny/2019. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-2015. M/S. Winvest Holdings (I) Pvt. Ltd, Vs The Assistant Commissioner Of D-16, 2Nd Floor, Nelson Chambers, Income Tax, No.115 Nelson Manickam Road, Corporate Circle 3(2), Aminjikarai, Chennai. Chennai 600 029. [Pan Aaacw 7724Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. P. Daniel, Advocate
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…t be reopened unless due adherence is made to the conditionalities incorporated in the provisions of the Act in respect of such powers vested in the Revenue’’. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd, (2017) 398 ITR 8, had held as follows 12. Mr. Asheesh Jain then volunteered that the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax had exercised the second option available to him under section 263(1) of the Act by sending the entire matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment. That option, in the considered view of the court, can be exercised only after th…

Champ Info Software, Noida vs. Prcit, Noida

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2799/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2013-14 Champ Info Software, Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, E-24, Sector-55, A2, D Block, Sector 24, Noida. Noida (U.P.)-201301 Vs

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms Nidhi Srivastava, C.I.T. DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

…case of inadequate enquiry it is incumbent for the Commissioner to conduct enquiry and not merely remit the matter to the Assessing Officer without conducting any verification/enquiry. In the case of PCIT vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express (P) Ltd. reported in 398 ITR 8 (Del) it has been held as under: “9. It is seen, in the order dated March 30, 2016, the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax has proceeded by setting out the contents of the show-cause notice and the contents of the reply given by the assessee. It appears that no inquiry, as such, was undertaken by the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax to come…

M/S Mewat Grit Udyog, New Delhi vs. Pr, CIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1802/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, advocate&For Respondent: Smt.Sulekha Verma, CIT/DR
Section 143(3)Section 201(1)Section 263Section 40

…, Ld. CIT(A) vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd 332 ITR 167 (del), ITO vs. DG Housing Projects Limited 343 ITR 329 (Del), Ld. CIT(A) vs. Leisurewear Exports Ltd 341 ITR 166 (Del) etc. Basing on CIT vs. DLF Ltd 350 ITR 555 (Del), PCIT vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express (P) Ltd 398 ITR 8 (Del) etc he submitted that where there is inadequate enquiry, but not lack of enquiry, the CIT must record finding that order is erroneous and must establish that error or mistake by the learned Assessing Officer is unsustainable. Further submissions made by him include, where twoviews are possible notice under section 263 of the Act cannot be in…