“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

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

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

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

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

Panineeys Sanskrit Colleges Trust, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, (Exemptions)-3, Hyderabad

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

ITA 220/HYD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Panineeya Sanskrit Vs. Ito(Exemptions)-3 College Trust Aaykar Bhawan Sy.No.103, Basheerbagh Vivekananda Nagar Hyderabad-500 004 Dilsukhnagar Hyderabad-500 060

For Appellant: Shri A.V.Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, Sr.AR

Section 11Section 120Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

erroneouS being prejudicial to the interest of Revenue - Requiring revision u/s 263 of the IT Act, 1961 of the said assessment order - Show cause notice u/s 263 of the IT Act - Furnishing of explanation - Reg Please refer to the subject mentioned above. 2. Consequent upon the CBDTs notification No. 65/2014

Shashikala Gupta, Hyderabad vs. ITO Ward-10(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 222/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Smt. Shashikala Gupta Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 10(1) Pan:Aaspg1838N Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Darshan Jakharia, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 14/12/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/12/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.3.2022 Of The Learned Pr.Cit-1, Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2017-18. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed Her Return Of Income On 26.07.2017 For A.Y 2017-18 Admitting Income From House Property & Other Sources At Rs.3,66,720/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass & Issues On Which The Selection Was Made Was “Large Value Cash Deposited During Demonetization Period As Compared To Returned Income”. Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Dated 9.8.2018 Was Issued & Served Electronically On The Assessee As Well As Page 1 Of 15

For Appellant: Shri Darshan Jakharia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

following decisions he submitted that once a query has been raised by the Assessing Officer and explanation is given by the assessee, revision u/s 263 cannot be done: (i) ITAT Hyderabad Bench in ITA 923/Hyd/2017 in the case of Narasimha Reddy Peechu vs. Income Tax Officer (ii) Hon'ble Rajasthan ... same. Under these circumstances, we have to see as to whether the impugned order passed by the Assessing Officer calls for revision u/s 263 of the I. T. Act. 12.1. The Hon'ble A.P High Court in the case of Spectra Shares & Script (P) Ltd vs. CIT, reported

Skyline Millars Limited, Mumbai vs. Pr. Comm of Income Tax, Mumabi 6, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is fully allowed

ITA 776/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalskyline Millars Ltd. 24 Po Box No. 9208, Kurla Kirol Road, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai-400086. Pan: Aaact2755J ...... Appellant Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-6, Room No. 501, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Dalpat Shah, Ca Respondent By : Sh. Rakesh Garg, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 22/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/12/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-6, Mumbai Dated 31.03.2022 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) For A.Y. 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Order U/Sec. 263 Of The Income Tax Act Is Bad-In-Law.

For Appellant: Sh. Dalpat Shah, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rakesh Garg, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

before 21.03.2022 at 12.30 PM. In case of non-compliance, it will be presumed that you have no objection to the proposed revision u/s 263 of the assessment order passed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the Act. RAHUL KARNA PCIT, Mumbai-6” 4. In our observation this

Vighnaharata Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1284/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Vighnaharata Trust Cit (Exemption) 1605/06 Hurrah, City Of Joy, Room No-617, 6Th Floor, Near Railway Station, Lbs Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Vs. Marg, Mulund West, Mumbai- Parel, Mumbai- 400 012 400 080 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaatv8040K Assessee By : Shri. Rajeev Khandelwal Revenue By : Shri. Achal Sharma Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.12.2022

For Appellant: Shri. Rajeev KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri. Achal Sharma CIT DR

Section 10Section 11Section 115BSection 12ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 292B

framed u/s 143 (3) read with Section 147 of the act on 14/12/2018. This order is subject to revision u/s 263. Therefore, only those issues for which the assessment was reopened could be revised in this order u/s 263 of the act. 17. The reason for reopening of the assessment ... provisions of Section 263 of the act, if the issue is „considered and decided‟ by the appellate authority, the same cannot be revised u/s 263. However, mere „pendency of an appeal‟ before the appellate authority does not oust the jurisdiction of the learned CIT. Honourable Bombay High Court in case

Sri. Pavan Kandkur, Hubballi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubballi

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

ITA 522/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.Shri Pavan Kandkur Vs Principle Commissioner Of Cts No. 3046, Hirepeth Nagar Income Tax Near Akkikonda Aayakar Bhavan Hubballi 580020 Navanagar Pan – Anipk4256B Hubballi 580025 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Balram R. Rao, Adv. Revenue By: Ms. Neera Malmotra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 15/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/11/2022 O R D E R Per: Padmavathy, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Cit, Hubali Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dated 23.03.2022 For Ay 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Conditions 1. Precedent Being Absent The Proceedings-Initiated U/S.263 Of The Act Was Opposed To Law & The Order Passed U/S.263 Is Liable To Be Cancelled. On The Facts There Being No Error Much Less An Error Prejudicial To The 2. Interest Of Revenue, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax Ought To Have Refrained From Invoking The Provisions Of Sec.263 Of The Act. The Learned Commissioner Ought To Have Considered The Submissions 3. Made By The Appellant & Ought Not To Have Invoked The Proceedings U/S.263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Balram R. Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malmotra, CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)Section 5(3)Section 8

other proceeding under the Income-tax Act.... (emphasis added) 8. The assessee has not been able to substantiate his claim that revision u/s 263 is not permitted in the facts of his case. In this case, revision u/s 263 is in respect of 'proceedings other than those in relation

Hasu Exporters, Mumbai vs. Pr. Comm of Income Tax-17, Mumbai

In the result, it is held that the initiation of proceedings under section 263 on the issue of LTCG is bad and uncalled for

ITA 1441/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalehasu Exporters Vs. Pr. Cit-17 Room No. 39, 1St Floor Room No. 120, 1St 94, Kansara Chawl, Floor, Kautilya Kalbadevi Road, Bhavan, C-41 To 43, G Mumbai – 400002. Block, Bkc, Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400051. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabfh7119J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Himanshu Gandhi.Ar Respondent By : Smt.Madhumalti Ghosh.Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 14.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.11.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Pr.Cit) -17, Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri. Himanshu Gandhi.ARFor Respondent: Smt.Madhumalti Ghosh.CIT DR

Section 1Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

stock summary containing opening stock, purchases and sales, the assessee submitted that these details were submitted on 12.12.2019. However, the AO proposing the revision u/s 263 has stated that the details submitted by the assessee on 12.12.2019 were not examined during the assessment proceedings before completion of the assessment ... month wise cash sales and purchases for F.Y. 2015-16 and F.Y. 2016-17/ were submitted on 12.12.2019. However, the AO proposing the revision u/s 263 has stated that the details submitted by the assessee on 12.12.2019 were not examined during the assessment proceedings before completion of the assessment

New Carrying Corporation, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward-12(1)I/C, Chennai

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

ITA 229/CHNY/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 229/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Respondent: Shri. M. Rajan, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263Section 40Section 4o

passed the order without conducting necessary investigation which he was prima-facie required to do making the order an erroneous assessment warranting revision u/s 263, Reference in this regard may be made to the decision of Hon'ble ITAT (SB), Chennai , in the case of Rajalakshmi Mills ... satisfied and I hold that the assessment Order dated 30.11.2017 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act is to subjected to revision u/s 263. Hence, the Assessment Order is hereby set aside with a direction to examine the aspect discussed in the body of the order (supra) and pass

Pathare Prabhu Charities, Mumbai vs. CIT(Exemption), Mumbai

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

ITA 644/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 644/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Cit (Exemp.), Pathare Prabhu Charities 601, 6Th Floor, Cumballa 3 Pathare Prabhu Dnyati Hill, Mtnl Telephone Bhavan, Jagannath बिधम/ Exchange Building, Shankerseth Road Vs. Peddar Road, Dr. Gopalrao Thakurdwar, Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai-400 002 Mumbai-400 026 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaatp0303P (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Hiro Rai, Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Praveen Shekhar, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 04.08.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 01.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 25.03.2022, Passed By Ld. Cit (Exemp.), Mumbai In His Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 For Ay 2017-18. 2

For Appellant: Shri Hiro Rai, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Shekhar, Ld. DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

I.T.A. No. 644/Mum/2022 Pathare Prabhu Charities 2. In various grounds of appeal, assessee has challenged, firstly; the validity of revision u/s 263, secondly; direction to treat rental income of Rs. 43,56,000/- as royalty /business income taxable u/s 11(4A) and lastly; direction given to the AO to examine

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

case. As a result, in the opinion of Ld. Pr. CIT, the AO's order was erroneous and therefore liable for revision u/s 263 of the Act. The assessee has seriously contested these findings recorded by the Ld Pr. CIT. In the circumstances, therefore before adjudicating the issues arising from

Bhupati Investments & Finance P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 5(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1134/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Bhupati Investments Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of & Finance Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax-6 B-34/35, 3Rd Floor, 501, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Paragon Condominium, Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Pandurang Budhkar Road, Marg, Worli, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400013 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacb0441P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Aarti Vissanji Respondent By : Ajay Chandra Date Of Hearing 11.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 17.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Pr. Cit-6, Mumbai, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The A.O U/S 143(3) Of The Act For A.Y. 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Pr. Cit) Erred In Passing An Order U/S 263 & Directing The Assessing Officer To Modify The Order Dated 16/12/2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of Income Tax Act, 1961. Your Appellants Submit That The Order Of The Pr. Cit Is Illegal, Bad In Law & Void & The Same Ought To Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Ajay Chandra

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

accordance with the provision of Sec. 14A of the Act r.w.rule 8D rendering the assessment order liable for revision u/s 263 of the Act. The ld. Pr.CIT stated that notice u/s 263 of the Act was issued on 03.03.2022. However, the assessee had not made compliance. The ld. Pr.CIT stated

Varadaraj Sumathi, Arcot vs. ITO, Ward 2, Vellore

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

ITA 367/CHNY/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 367/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 Smt. Varadaraj Sumathi, The Income Tax Officer, 35/12A, Vellore Main Road, 1St Street, Vs. Ward 2, Vellore. Arcot 632 503. [Pan:Bbzps1853C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri I. Dinesh, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax/Cit-8, Chennai, Dated 12.03.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2010-11 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri I. Dinesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

satisfied and I hold that the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act can be subjected to revision u/s 263 of the Act. 7. Hence, the Assessment Order is hereby set aside with a direction to the AO to examine the books of accounts maintained by the assessee

M/S Southern Tpetrochemical Industries Corpration Limited, Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-3(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 232/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.232/Chny/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S.Southern Petrochemical V. The Income Tax Officer, Industries Corporation Ltd., Corporate Ward-3(1), 88, Spic House, Mount Road, Chennai. Guindy, Chennai-600 032. [Pan:Aaacs 4668 K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, Adv. &

Section 115JSection 143Section 263

order of PCIT dealing with erroneous and prejudicial orders, it is not permissible to grant additional benefit while disposing an order of revision u/s 263. Hence, this issue does not arise separately as the claim for Rs.184.53 Crores has been dealt with above and the additional deduction of Rs.20.54 Crores ... event the AO has taken one possible view and hence, the PCIT is precluded from imposing his opinion by resorting to revision u/s 263. Thus, we are of the considered view that the power of revision of PCIT on this issue is also failed. 31. At this stage

C.Jebamani, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corp Ward 11(4), Chennai

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

ITA 157/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.157/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16 V. Mr.C.Jebamani, The Income Tax Officer, 62/1, Peters Road, Non-Corporate Ward-11(4), Royapettah, Chennai. Chennai. [Pan: Acnpj 6400 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.T.Vasudevan, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.M.Rajan, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14.09.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.09.2022

For Respondent: Mr.M.Rajan, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263

passed the order without conducting necessary investigation which he was prima-facie required to do making the order an erroneous assessment warranting revision u/s 263. Reference in this regard may be made to the decision of Hon'ble (TAT (SB), Chennai, in the case of Rajalakshmi Mills ... hold that the Assessment Order dated 14.11.2017 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act for the A.Y.2015-16 is to be subjected to revision u/s 263. Hence, the Assessment Order is hereby set aside with a direction to examine the aspect discussed in the body of the order (supra) and pass

M/S. Bhavana Co-Operative Credit Society Niyamita, Sirsi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Sirsi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 361/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Bhavana Co- Operative Credit The Income-Tax Society Niyamita, Officer, #38, Market Road, Ward – 1, Sirsi – 581 401. Sirsi. Vs. Pan: Aacab5033D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, CIT-DR

Section 250Section 263Section 68Section 80P

thus the same could not be held as erroneous by labelling the same to be not in accordance with law to warrant revision u/s 263 of the Act under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. Page 5 of 12 ITA Nos. 739/Bang/2021 & 361/Bang/2022

M/S. Bhavana Co-Operative Credit Society Niyamita, Sirsi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1, Sirsi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 739/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, CIT-DR

Section 250Section 263Section 68Section 80P

M/S. Eta Star Infopark, Bengaluru vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-1, Bengaluru

ITA 248/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Annamalai, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263

variation of the opinion of the learned Pr. CIT, would not grant the learned Pr. CIT the powers of revision u/s 263 of the Act. 2.26 According to Ld. A.R,, the reliance placed by Ld. PCIT on the judgement in the case of M/s Daniel Merchants

M/S. Eta Star Infopark, Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Bengaluru

ITA 415/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Annamalai, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263

Varsha Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

ITA 510/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.507 To 510/Bang/2019 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, D.R

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

what was the material before AO for issue of notice u/s 148. (iii) The case before Calcutta High Court was regular assessment and revision u/s 263 whereas the case herein is reopening u/s 148 and non-adherance to the procedure prescribed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in GKN Driveshaft case

Varsha Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

ITA 509/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.507 To 510/Bang/2019 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, D.R

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

Varsha Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

ITA 508/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.507 To 510/Bang/2019 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, D.R

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C