← All Phrases

“Chief Commissioner”

Chapter I - PreliminarySection 2 - DefinitionsSection 2(15A) / Section 1172,876 judgments

The decision most relied on for Chief Commissioner is Pvt Ltd. v. ACIT (93 Taxmann.com 296), cited in 98 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Chief Commissioner

Pvt Ltd. v. ACIT
93 Taxmann.com 296 · 2018 · High Court
98
citing judgments

Approval granted by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner under Section 151 for reassessment proceedings under Section 148 must reflect due application of mind. A mere endorsement of "approved" without reasons or reference to material is insufficient, as the approval serves as a safeguard and must be meaningful, not ritualistic or formal.

Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT
457 ITR 647 · 2023 · High Court
95
citing judgments

The amended Section 151 of the Income-tax Act, governing the sanction for reassessment proceedings under Sections 148 and 148A, applies to cases initiated under the new reassessment regime. The specified authority for granting such sanction becomes the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General if more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year.

Ghanshyam K. Khabrani v. ACIT
346 ITR 443 · 2012 · High Court
89
citing judgments

The reassessment proceedings are invalid if the required sanction under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act is not obtained from the statutorily designated authority or if the approval is granted mechanically without due satisfaction. Approval by a higher authority cannot substitute the satisfaction of the authority specified in Section 151.

Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner
1 SCC 405 · 1978 · Supreme Court
79
citing judgments

When a statutory authority issues an order based on specific grounds, its validity must be assessed solely by those stated grounds and cannot be supported or improved by additional reasons provided later in affidavits or other means. An order that is invalid at its inception cannot be validated by subsequent justifications.

Sahara India v. CIT & Others
216 CTR 303 · 2008 · Reported
54
citing judgments

The requirement of prior approval from the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner under Section 142(2A) is a crucial safeguard against arbitrary assessment, placing a significant responsibility on the approving authority to ensure its genuine application and prevent it from becoming a mere formality.

New Noble Educational Society v. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax
448 ITR 594 · 2022 · Supreme Court
50
citing judgments

An institution qualifies as an 'educational institution' for tax exemption, including under Section 10(23C)(iiiab), only if it imparts structured, formal education, distinguishing it from general public utility activities under Section 2(15).

Star India Private Limited v. Chief Commissioner of Central Excise
280 ITR 321 · 2006 · Supreme Court
47
citing judgments

The Supreme Court holds that while the Legislature can enact laws retrospectively, this power does not normally extend to creating an offence or penal liability retroactively, nor to withdrawing a benefit already granted under a statute through retrospective amendment.

Oxford Academy for Career Development v. Chief CIT
315 ITR 382 · 2009 · High Court
37
citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) has no power to cancel registration granted under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act retrospectively, especially when there is no express provision in the Act for such cancellation and the order is quasi-judicial in nature.

Judgments citing Chief Commissioner

Exel Rubber Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

ITA 1108/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CA
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148BSection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151

record reveals that the request for approval under section 151 of the Act in a printed format was placed before the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income

Exel Rubber Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

ITA 1106/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CA
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148BSection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151

ITA Nos 1106 to 1109 and 1233 of 2025 Exel Rubber Pvt Ltd आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE

Ace Tyres Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

ITA 1086/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148BSection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151

ITA Nos 1084 to 1088 and 1207 of 2025 ACE Tyres P Ltd आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE

Ace Tyres Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

ITA 1085/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.1084 To 1088 & 1027/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148BSection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151

ITA Nos 1084 to 1088 and 1207 of 2025 ACE Tyres P Ltd आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE

Sanjay Garg, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-8, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2268/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 153ASection 153DSection 154Section 69

case of Sahara India vs. CIT and Others (2008) 300 ITR 403 (SC) where the discussion on the requirement of prior approval of Chief Commissioner or Commissioner in terms of provision of Section 142(2A) of the Act had been made, it was noted that the Apex Court has held ... therein that the requirement of previous approval of the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner in terms of the said provision being an in-built protection against arbitrary or unjust exercise of power by the Assessing Officer casts a very heavy duty on the said high ranking authority to see that

Sanjay Garg, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 8, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2266/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 153ASection 153DSection 154Section 69

case of Sahara India vs. CIT and Others (2008) 300 ITR 403 (SC) where the discussion on the requirement of prior approval of Chief Commissioner or Commissioner in terms of provision of Section 142(2A) of the Act had been made, it was noted that the Apex Court has held ... therein that the requirement of previous approval of the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner in terms of the said provision being an in-built protection against arbitrary or unjust exercise of power by the Assessing Officer casts a very heavy duty on the said high ranking authority to see that

Kiran, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-43(1), Delhi

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

ITA 1495/DEL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 69ASection 69C

sought to be commenced after the lapse of three years from the end of the relevant A Y, undisputedly, it would be the Principal Chief Commissioner who would be liable to be recognised as being the competent authority. Viewed in that light, it is apparent that the reassessment action would ... issued u/s 148 of the Act is not a valid notice, as the approval was not granted by the specified authority i.e. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax as mandated u/s 151(ii) We further observe that the impugned notice u/s 148 for AY 2017-18 was issued

Shree Laxmi Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Jalgaon vs. ITO, Ward 1(4), Jalgaon

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

ITA 1122/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Vinay KawadiaFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

functions of an Assessing Officer conferred on, or assigned to, him under the orders or directions issued by the Board or by the Chief Commissioner or Director General or Commissioner authorized by the Board in this behalf under section 120; (b) record shall include and shall be deemed always

Dr. Pratap Pandhiranath Patil, Pune vs. PCIT - 2, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

ITA 1026/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri A.V.Iyer and Shri Siddhant G. BiswasFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

functions of an Assessing Officer conferred on, or assigned to, him under the orders or directions issued by the Board or by the Chief Commissioner or Director General or Commissioner authorized by the Board in this behalf under section 120; (b) record shall include and shall be deemed always

Gajanand Financial Consultancy Private Limited, Nagpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Nagpur, Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 126/NAG/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Sept 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

before appellate authority, the same cannot be put on the radar of revision proceedings. The relevant provision is reproduced below: 263. (1) The Principal Chief Commissioner of Chief Commissioner of Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceedings under this

Sharada Electors Private Limited, Pune vs. PCIT, Pune-3, Pune

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

ITA 1432/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 263

deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal [Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal] Commissioner or Commissioner,- (a) the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made ... functions of an Assessing Officer conferred on, or assigned to, him under the orders or directions issued by the Board or by the Chief Commissioner or 12 Sharada Erectors Private Limited Director General or Commissioner authorized by the Board in this behalf under section 120; (b) record shall include

Birla Carbon India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai - 5, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 3768/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyabirla Carbon India Private Limited The Principal Commissioner Of Ground Floor, Aditya Birla Centre, Income Tax Room No. 515, 5Th Floor, Aaykar S. K. Ahire Marg, Worli, Vs. Mumbai-400 030 Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aascs 9916 L (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Madhur Agarwal Respondent By : Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh Date Of Hearing : 16.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.09.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: In The Present Appeal, The Assessee Has Called Into Question The Validity Of The Order Dated 25.03.2025, Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) By Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (‘Ld.Pcit’ For Short), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19. 2. Thought Multiple Grounds Have Been Raised In The Memorandum Of Appeal, However, The Assessee Has Raised A Pertinent Preliminary Issue, Challenging The Competence & Jurisdiction Of Ld. Pcit To Invoke Powers U/S. 263 Of The Act To Revise An Assessment Order Passed U/S. 144C(13) Of The Act, In Pursuance To The Directions Of Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (Ld. Drp).

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 263Section 92C

functions of an Assessing officer conferred on, or assigned to, him under the orders or directions issued by he Board or by the [Principal ] Chief Commissioner or] Chief Commissioner or[Principal Director General or] Director General or[ Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner authorized by the Board in this behalf under section ... deemed always to have included] all records relating to any proceeding under this Act available at the time of examination by the [Principal [Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal] Commissioner or] Commissioner; (c) where any order referred to in this sub-section and passed by the Assessing Officer

Vipendra Ravindra Mandal, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer- Ward 22(3)(6), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1819/MUM/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Vipendra Ravindra Mandal, Ito Ward 22(3)(6), 405, Orchid Wing-F Lodha Crown, Piramal Chamber, Taloja Bypass Road, Kohni B.O. Vs. Mumbai-400012. Khoni, Thane-421204. Pan No. Alepm 8472 H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. V.P. KothariFor Respondent: Mr. Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(A)Section 54

prior approval of 6. The Order u/s. 148A(d) is passed with the prior approval of the specified aut the specified authority (Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, hority (Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai) u/s. 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Notice u/s. Mumbai

Basudeo Soni, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 35(1), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 4894/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 4894/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Basudeo Soni, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O B-50, Lgf, South Extension-Ii, Ward-35(1), New Delhi-110049 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Agyps4983N Assessee By: Sh. Saantanu Jain, Adv. & Ms. Jahanvi Khanna, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.09.2025

For Appellant: Sh. Saantanu Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 13ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 29A

relevant assessment year, thus, in terms of Section 151(ii) of the Act, the same was required to be approved by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or where there is no such authority, by Chief Commissioner or Director General. The determination of the specified authority for grant ... Director, if three years or less 5 Basudeo Soni than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year; (ii) Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or where there is no Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General, Chief Commissioner or Director General, if more than

Seema Goel, Delhi vs. CIT A, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2006/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 14tSection 250Section 271Section 69A

relevant assessment year, thus, in terms of Section 151(ii) of the Act, the same was required to be approved by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or where there is no such authority, by Chief Commissioner or Director General. The determination of the specified authority for grant

Seema Goel, Delhi vs. CIT A, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2005/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 14tSection 250Section 271Section 69A

relevant assessment year, thus, in terms of Section 151(ii) of the Act, the same was required to be approved by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or where there is no such authority, by Chief Commissioner or Director General. The determination of the specified authority for grant

Sanchit Kantilal Ganore, Bhagur vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Nashik

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1767/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1767/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sanchit Kantilal Ganore, V The Income Tax Officer, 21, Main Road, Bhagur, S. Ward-1(1), Nashik. Nashik - 422502. Pan: Aprpg4907J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Piyush Bafna Revenue By Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar– Add.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 09/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/09/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2017-18, Dated 29.05.2025 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.147 R.W.S 144 Of The I.T.Act, Dated 21.05.2023. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law & Without Prejudice To Other Grounds, Ld. Nfac Has Erred In Passing A

Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 250

held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal - 469 ITR 46, the sanction ought have been obtained from Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, which admittedly not obtained and hence, the said notice as well as consequential assessment order deserves to be quashed ITA No.1767/PUN/2025 ... Commissioner or Director, if three years or less than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year; (ii) Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or where there is no Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General, Chief Commissioner or Director General, if more than three

Megnanapuram Paccs, Tiruchendur vs. PCIT, Madurai

ITA 895/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:895/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Megnanapuram Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Credit Society 4/40, Megnanapuram Tiruchendur Road, Tiruchendur Thoothukudi – 628 210. [Pan: Aabam-9847-M] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Pcit Vs. Madurai - I (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.09.2025 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Filed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Pcit, Madurai - 1, For The Assessment Year 2018-19, Vide Order Dated 17.03.2025. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80P

year under consideration, i.e. Assessment Year 2018-19, the proper authority for granting sanction for issuing such notice u/s.148 of the Act is "Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or where there is no Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General, Chief Commissioner or Director General” as prescribed ... such notice u/s.148 of the Act was that of the authorities prescribed in terms of Section 151(ii) of the Act, i.e. “Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or where there is no Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General, Chief Commissioner or Director General

Aditya Birla Education Trust, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 4474/MUM/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Soparkar (virtually appear), Shri Yogesh Thar, ShriFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (CIT-DR)
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 13(1)(b)

character of students by normal schooling. 4.2.1 Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/S New Noble Educational Society vs The Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Civil Appeal No. 3795 OF 2014) has re-affirmed the view that in case of entities claiming exemption on the ground

Lic Mutual Fund Asset Management Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-1(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4246/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2022-23 Lic Mutual Fund Asset Dcit-1(2)(1), Management Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th Floor, Industrial Assurance Vs. Maharshi Karve Road, Building, Mumbai-400020. Opp: Churchgate Station, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Pan : Aaacj1166H (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Madhur Agrawal & Shri Ravikant Pathak For Revenue : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 15-09-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19-09-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-1, [„Ld.Pcit‟], Dated 07-03- 2025, U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟), Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2022-23, Wherein The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1.The Hon'Ble Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-1 (Hereinafter Referred As Hon'Ble Pcit] Erred In Setting Aside The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("Act") & Passing The Revision Order U/S 263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. Section 263 of the Act provides that the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceedings under this Act, and if he considers that