← All Phrases

“revision u/s 263”

Rectification & RevisionSection 263Section 263521 judgments

The decision most relied on for revision u/s 263 is CIT v. Amitabh Bachchan (384 ITR 200), cited in 264 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on revision u/s 263

CIT v. Amitabh Bachchan
384 ITR 200 · 2016 · Supreme Court
264
citing judgments

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.

Grasim Industries Ltd. v. CIT
321 ITR 92 · 2010 · High Court
194
citing judgments

This case clarifies the scope of the Commissioner's revisional powers under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, holding that an assessment order can only be revised if it is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, echoing the principles laid down in Malabar Industrial.

CIT v. Nirma Chemical Works Ltd.
309 ITR 67 · 2009 · High Court
149
citing judgments

An assessment order is not erroneous or prejudicial under Section 263 merely because it is silent on a claim or lacks explicit reasons for its acceptance. Revision under Section 263 is impermissible if the Assessing Officer has taken a plausible view, even if the PCIT holds a different opinion.

Babulal C. Borana v. ITO
282 ITR 251 · 2006 · High Court
138
citing judgments

An assessment order becomes erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue, justifying revision under Section 263, if the Assessing Officer fails to conduct proper inquiries or apply his mind to relevant issues, such as the genuineness of purchases when corresponding sales are accepted, often leading to a remand for fresh adjudication.

CIT v. Jawahar Bhattacharjee
341 ITR 434 · 2012 · High Court
99
citing judgments

An assessment order is erroneous for the purpose of Section 263 if the Assessing Officer fails to apply mind to relevant material, proceeds on an incorrect assumption of facts, or makes an incorrect application of law.

CIT v. Vodafone Essar South Ltd.
212 Taxmann 184 · 2013 · High Court
86
citing judgments

When an Assessing Officer conducts an inquiry and considers the assessee's disclosures, the Commissioner cannot invoke Section 263 to revise the assessment on grounds of inadequate inquiry or a mere difference of opinion. The absence of a detailed discussion on an issue in the assessment order does not automatically mean the Assessing Officer failed to apply his mind.

Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Surat-2 v. Shreeji Prints (P.) Ltd.
130 Taxmann.com 294 · 2021 · Supreme Court
78
citing judgments

A plausible view taken by the Assessing Officer, after due enquiry and verification, does not render an assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue for the purpose of revision under Section 263, thereby limiting the scope of revisional powers.

Income-Tax v. Gokuldas Exports
333 ITR 214 · 2011 · High Court
42
citing judgments

An assessment order is not considered erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue for invoking Section 263 if the Assessing Officer has adopted one of two possible views, even if the Commissioner of Income-tax disagrees with that view. The phrase 'prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue' must be read in conjunction with the expression 'erroneous'.

Judgments citing revision u/s 263

Shree Shyam Buildstructure Private Limited, Sikar vs. ITO Ward -1, Sikar

ITA 814/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Dec 2024AY 2013-14
Section 147Section 148Section 263

Apex Court observed that unlike power of reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act, the power of Revision u/s 263 of the Act is not contingent on the giving of a notice to show cause and further that Section263 has been understood not to require any specific show cause ... Apex Court observed that unlike power of reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act, the power of Revision u/s 263 of the Act is not contingent on the giving of a notice to show cause and further that Section263 has been understood not to require any specific show cause

Jayantilal Panachand Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The PCIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 627/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year : 2014-15 Jayantilal Panachand Shah The Pr.Cit-1 72, Topovan Society Vs Ahmedabad. Nr. Manekbaug Hall Ambawadi Ahmedabad 380 015 Pan : Aqnps 2754 C (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Divetia, Ar : Shri A.P. Singh, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13/11/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/12/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 263

revenue. 2.2 That the in the facts and circumstances of the Id. Pr. CIT ought not to have invoked the powers of revision u/s 263 and thereby holding that LTCG on sale of shares of Looks Health Services Ltd. (short 'LHSL') of Rs.1,02,18,980/- was not genuine

Kandaiah Muthukrishnan, Chennai vs. Dcir, CC-2(4), Chennai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1214/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1214/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Shri Kandaiah Muthukrishnan Dcit बनाम/ #161, Rangarajapuram Main Road, Central Circle-2(4) Vs. Kodambakkam, Chennai-600 024. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aftpm-5826-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar (Advocate)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03-12-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16-12-2024

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

make necessary enquiries could not be accepted. The Explanation-2 to Sec.263 would not apply in the present case. Accordingly, the impugned revision u/s 263 could not be upheld. We order so. The assessment framed by Ld. AO stand restored back. 8. The appeal stands allowed in terms

Bhogilal Bhailalbhai Patel, Vadodara vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 613/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 613/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16) बनाम/ Bhogilal Bhailalbhai The Pr. Commissioner Of Patel Income Tax-1 Vs. 475/2, Sagar Faliya, At & Vadodara Post Bhayali, Vadodara - 391410 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Bkkpp3136R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Hemant Suthar, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Samir Tekriwal, Cit. Dr 19/11/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 28/11/2024

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Suthar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Samir Tekriwal, CIT. DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54BSection 54F

assessee in this regard are, therefore, not found applicable to the facts of the case. The principle that powers of PCIT for revision u/s 263 of the Act would be limited to issues which had been considered in limited scrutiny assessment was also upheld in the cases as relied upon

Mrugesh Jitendrabhai Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The PCIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1032/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divatia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prithviraj Meena, CIT DR
Section 147Section 263

revenue. 2.2 That the in the facts and circumstances of the ld. Pr. CIT ought not to have invoked the powers of revision u/s 263 and thereby holding that the source of cash payment of Rs. 20,82,500/- was neither examined nor addition made

M/S. Anabond Ltd., Chennai vs. PCIT, Chennai-1

In the result, all the grounds appeal raised by the assesse are allowed

ITA 1625/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1625/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2018-19 M/S. Anabond Limited The Principal Commissioner Of Type-Ii, 36, Dr. V.S.I. Estate Income Tax-1 Tiruvanmiyur, Chennai Chennai-600041. [Pan: Aacca4158Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri B.Ramakrishnan, F.C.A. अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2024

For Appellant: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35Section 5Section 80I

corroborative evidence was found in contrary to the view taken by the Assessing Officer. Under these circumstances, there cannot be a revision u/s 263 based on mere change of opinion or a different view being adopted by the Revisionary Authority u/s 263. 5.0 The discussions made in the preceding paragraphs

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Auranagbad., Aurangabad vs. Shreehari Associates Pvt Ltd, Aurangabad

The appeals of the REVENUE are ALLOWED

ITA 410/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Mr CH Naniwadekar & Kiran Sanmane [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ajaykumar Kesari & Arvind Desai [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 253(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)

treating these transactions as sham and bogus, thus requiring disallowance in its entirety whether in original assessment or otherwise in revision u/s 263 of the Act. We are mindful to state that, the Ld. AO’s acceptance of part of total unexplained sub-contract expenditure for the purpose of assessment

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Aurangabad vs. Shreehari Associates Pvt Ltd, Aurangabad

The appeals of the REVENUE are ALLOWED

ITA 408/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Mr CH Naniwadekar & Kiran Sanmane [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ajaykumar Kesari & Arvind Desai [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 253(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)

treating these transactions as sham and bogus, thus requiring disallowance in its entirety whether in original assessment or otherwise in revision u/s 263 of the Act. We are mindful to state that, the Ld. AO’s acceptance of part of total unexplained sub-contract expenditure for the purpose of assessment

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Aurangabad vs. Shreehari Associates Private Limited, Aurangabad

The appeals of the REVENUE are ALLOWED

ITA 407/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Mr CH Naniwadekar & Kiran Sanmane [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ajaykumar Kesari & Arvind Desai [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 253(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)

treating these transactions as sham and bogus, thus requiring disallowance in its entirety whether in original assessment or otherwise in revision u/s 263 of the Act. We are mindful to state that, the Ld. AO’s acceptance of part of total unexplained sub-contract expenditure for the purpose of assessment

Shikha Mittal, New Delhi vs. Prcit (Central)-2, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 240/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri M. Balaganeshshikha Mittal, Vs. Pr. Cit (Central)-2, 443, Deepali Enclave, New Delhi Pitampura, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aampg5980H Assessee By : Shri Amol Sinha, Adv Revenue By: Ms. Jaya Chaudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 24/10/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2024

For Appellant: Shri Amol Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Jaya Chaudhary, CIT DR
Section 153ASection 263

aspects, now cannot say that the very same assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue warranting revision u/s 263 of the Act. Hence we have no hesitation to quash the revision order passed u/s 263 of the Act by the ld PCIT. Accordingly, the additional

Shivam Readymix Private Limited, Neemuch vs. The PCIT(Central), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 412/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal (C.A.)For Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 263Section 69C

Order u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act which is passed after an approval of ld. JCIT u/s 153D could not be revised u/s 263 without giving a finding that prior approval u/s 153D was vitiated: In this regard Reliance is placed on following judicial pronouncements— 9 Shivam Readymix ... view keeping in mind the assessee’s submissions during reassessment proceedings. This being the case, the assessment order could not be subjected to revision u/s 263 and the action of Ld. Pr.CIT in invoking jurisdiction u/s 263 could not be sustained in the eyes of law. Similar is the view

Petroleum Federation of India, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 645/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Sabharwal, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Suneeta Verma, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 250Section 263

order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous in as much as prejudicial to the interest of revenue and therefore, fit case for revision u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act 1961. 2. That the Ld. CIT (Exemption) failed to appreciate that the assessment order so passed by the Assessing

Petroleum Federation of India, New Delhi vs. CIT (E), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 3967/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Sabharwal, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Suneeta Verma, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 250Section 263

order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous in as much as prejudicial to the interest of revenue and therefore, fit case for revision u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act 1961. 2. That the Ld. CIT (Exemption) failed to appreciate that the assessment order so passed by the Assessing

M/S Model Exim, Kanpur vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 137/LKW/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow05 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriam/S. Model Exim Pcit (Central) V. 624-C, Defence Colony, 7/81-B, Tilak Nagar, Jajmau, Kanpur-208010. Kanpur. Pan:Aadfm6163H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Swaran Singh, C.A. Respondent By: Smt Namita S. Pandey, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 29 10 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05 11 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Swaran Singh, C.AFor Respondent: Smt Namita S. Pandey, CIT(DR)
Section 139Section 153CSection 153DSection 263Section 263(1)

facts of the case. As a result, in the opinion of Ld. Pr. CIT, AO’s order was erroneous and therefore liable for revision u/s 263 of the Act.The said findings of the Ld Pr. CIT have been seriously contested by the appellant in the grounds. In the circumstances therefore ... respect of each of the reason set out in clauses of SCN was unsustainable in law and therefore the order was liable for revision u/s 263 of the Act. 17. We also note that both in the reasons set out in SCN as well as in the impugned order

Rachna Sanjay Shah, Ahmedabad vs. PCIT, Ahmedabad -1, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 626/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri/St.R. Senthil Kumar & Narendra Prasad Sinhaasst.Year :2014-2015 Rachana Sanjay Shah The Pr.Cit-1 72, Tapovan Society Vs Ahmedabad. Nr. Manekbaug Hall Ambawadi Ahmedabad 380015. Pan : Amdps 6571 P

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia, AR and Shri Samir Vora, AFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 263

revenue. 2.2 That the in the facts and circumstances of the Id. Pr. CIT ought not to have invoked the powers of revision u/s 263 and thereby holding that LTCG on sale of shares of Looks Health Services Ltd. (short 'LHSL') of Rs. 92,12,772/- was not genuine

ACIT Central Circle 2(1), Chennai vs. K.C.P.Shivaraman, Karur

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed

ITA 2183/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Nov 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2183/Chny/2018 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Acit Shri K.C.P. Shivaraman बनाम/ Central Circle-2(1), #330, Chinna Andan Koil Road, Vs. Chennai. Karur-639 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaxps-4844-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit)-Ld. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-09-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05-11-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT)-Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld. AR
Section 143(3)Section 147

loan taken from aforesaid entity was accepted and no addition was made in respect thereof. 3.2 The order was subjected to revision u/s 263 vide order dated 08- 08-2014 wherein the issue of addition u/s 68 with respect to an entity M/s Pacific Chennai Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. was flagged ... make any addition in that respect. The same is further evidenced by the fact that the aforesaid order was subjected to revision u/s 263. The revisionary authority, upon perusal of case records, flagged issue only with respect to another entity M/s Pacific Chennai Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. However, no discrepancy

Global Alumni Association of Bengal Engineering and Science University, Shibpur vs. CIT(Exemption), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 852/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No. 852/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Bhattacharaya, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Datta, CIT DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263

u/s 263 of the Act are wide but not unbridled. It is settled law that for an order to be revised u/s 263 of the Act two conditions must be satisfied; a. The order must be erroneous b. The order must be prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue ... Mere error in judgement of deferring interpretation of law does not warrant revision u/s 263 of the Act unless it is shown that the AO’s order was palpably erroneous, which lead to loss of Revenue. 8. In the present case, the ld. CIT (E) invoked the section 263

Ghanshyambhai Ambalal Patel, Kheda vs. The PCIT-1, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1007/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Divyakant Parikh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prothviraj Meena, CIT-D.R
Section 147Section 263Section 69A

QUASHED. When the so called Order u/s 147 itself is illegal and void and bad in law, the same cannot be Revised u/s 263 of the Act. The facts are not disputed that the assessment was reopened in the case of appellant for the REASON that the appellant had deposited ... valid REASON to believe that income had escaped assessment. When the very so called ORDER is illegal, the same cannot be Revised u/s 263 of the Act. HOW THE SO CALLED REASSESSMENT ORDER OF A.O. DATED 22.03.2022 IS INAVLID: Kind attention in this regard is drawn to the following decisions

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

assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act, 1961 dated 30.12.2016 passed after application of mind and inadequate inquiry cannot lead to revision u/s 263 of the Act; iv. Legal submissions on jurisdiction to initiate proceedings u/s 263. 5. The ld. PCIT has dealt with the issue of interest ... filed during assessment proceedings hence ld. AO has taken into consideration, formed a view and passed assessment order which is not amenable to revision u/s 263 of the Act. The ld. Counsel also relied upon the judgments which were referred by the assessee before the ld.PCIT. 7. Per contra

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

Assessing officer with total disregard to the facts and circumstances of the case. The CIT has failed to appreciate that powers of revision u/s 263 cannot be exercised for redoing the investigation, rather the CIT ought to have done the investigation himself before restoring the matter to the AO. Grounds