← All Phrases

“erroneous and prejudicial”

Rectification & RevisionSection 263Section 2633,136 judgments

The decision most relied on for erroneous and prejudicial is Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (243 ITR 83), cited in 2,943 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on erroneous and prejudicial

Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT
243 ITR 83 · 2000 · Supreme Court
2,943
citing judgments

For revision under Section 263, the Assessing Officer's order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue; if either condition is not met, the revisionary jurisdiction cannot be invoked. An order is not erroneous merely because the Assessing Officer did not record the details of enquiries conducted, provided due enquiries were made.

CIT v. Max India Ltd.
295 ITR 282 · 2007 · Supreme Court
1,162
citing judgments

Under Section 263, an assessment order is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue merely because the Principal Commissioner disagrees with the Assessing Officer's (AO) view, particularly if the AO has adopted one of two permissible views in law, unless that view is completely unsustainable. If due inquiries were made, the AO's order does not become erroneous solely because the fact of inquiries was not recorded.

CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd.
203 ITR 108 · 1993 · High Court
990
citing judgments

The Commissioner cannot revise an assessment order under Section 263 merely because they hold a different opinion or believe a deeper inquiry was warranted if the Assessing Officer has applied their mind and conducted some inquiry. Revision under Section 263 is permissible only in cases of a complete lack of inquiry or non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer, not for merely inadequate inquiry.

CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd.
332 ITR 167 · 2011 · High Court
897
citing judgments

The Commissioner cannot revise an assessment under Section 263 merely because the assessment order does not explicitly reflect an inquiry, or because the Commissioner holds a different opinion. An inquiry, even if considered inadequate, or an assessment based on a plausible view by the Assessing Officer after due examination, does not automatically make the order erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.

Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT
67 ITR 84 · 1968 · Supreme Court
616
citing judgments

An assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue's interests if the Assessing Officer accepts a sum offered as income by an assessee, even when that sum was not actually earned, thereby allowing revision under Section 263.

Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT
99 ITR 375 · 1975 · High Court
543
citing judgments

An assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue if the Assessing Officer fails to make proper inquiries before accepting the assessee's statements or claims. The Commissioner can revise such an order under Section 263 without conducting further inquiries himself.

ITO v. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd.
343 ITR 329 · 2012 · High Court
438
citing judgments

For exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 263, the Commissioner must first find that the Assessing Officer's order is erroneous and unsustainable in law, as this is a condition precedent. An order is not erroneous merely because two views are possible, or if the Commissioner disagrees with the Assessing Officer's permissible view, or to simply remit the matter for further enquiries.

CIT v. Vikas Polymers
341 ITR 537 · 2012 · High Court
318
citing judgments

An assessment order is not erroneous and prejudicial under Section 263 merely because the Assessing Officer did not record an enquiry and its satisfactory answer in the assessment order, provided such an enquiry was conducted. For revision under Section 263, the Commissioner must also provide the assessee an opportunity of being heard and examine their explanation.

Judgments citing erroneous and prejudicial

Amrit Paul Goyal Through Legal Heir Neelam Goyal, Mansa vs. DCIT, CC-1, Ludhiana

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 329/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 263

thereby, holding that the assessment as framed by the Assessing ITA 329/CHD/2023 A.Y.2018-19 Page 2 of 5 Officer vides order, dated 01.03.2021 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 2. That the Ld. PCIT has failed to appreciate the fact that the Assessing Officer at the time

M/S Sushil Kumar Gupta & Company, Ambala City vs. Pr.CIT, Panchkula

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 270/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263

issues flagged under CASS have not been examined. 6.4 In view of above, the assessment order dated 08.02.2021 was considered to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue in terms of clause (a) of Explanation 2 to section 263 of the Income ... Assessee. These were, as rightly noted by the ITAT, unconnected issues and the assessment order could not have been held to be "erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue" when the AO could not have travelled beyond the issues forming subject matter of the 'limited scrutiny.” 13. In view

Shri Mohan Lal Gupta, Shimla vs. Pr.CIT-1, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 119/CHANDI/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Aditya Sood, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 54F

justified in setting aside the order passed by the Ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Shimla holding the same to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That the order of the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income ... submitted that merely because there is no discussion in the body of the assessment order, it does not make the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue so long as the matter has been duly examined during the course of original assessment order and which

Mr. Balkrishna Pandey, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-24(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1023/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 263

Hence, learned PCIT initiated revision proceedings under section 263 of the Act observing that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. After hearing the assessee, learned PCIT set aside the assessment order and directed the Assessing Officer to redo ... learned DR submitted that the AO has completed the assessment without verifying the above said issues and the same has rendered assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. Accordingly, he submitted that the impugned revision order passed by learned PCIT should be upheld. 5. We heard

M/S. the Bhavasara Kshatriya Co-Operative Society Limited, Mysuru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Mysuru

ITA 981/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roym/S Bhavasara Kshatriya Co- Operative Society Ltd., 279, Benkinawab Street, Mandi Mohalla, Mysureu-570 001. Pan – Aadat 2458 F Appelant Assessee By : Shri V Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 03.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.01.2024

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 143Section 234Section 250Section 80P

Revenue. Also, an incorrect assumption of facts or incorrect application of law by the AO would make the order of assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The Totgars Co- operative Sale Society

Anamika Garg, Dewas vs. CIT, Ujjain

ITA 214/IND/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore02 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Anamika Garg, Pcit, 117, Tukoganj Marg, Ujjain बनाम/ Nayapura, Vs. Dewas (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aiwpg 3922 D Assessee By Shri Suresh Gupta, Ar Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 02.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02.01.2024

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54B

call for and examine the record of proceeding conducted by AO but also himself consider that the assessment-order passed by AO is erroneous-cum- prejudicial to the interest of revenue. But in the present case, this exercise done by AO. Therefore, the revisionary-action suffers from a serious jurisdictional ... section 263 of the Act is an enabling provision which confers jurisdiction on the CIT to revise an assessment order which he considers erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. The process of revision u/s 263 of the Act initiates only when the CIT calls for and examines

Rawat Bal Vidha Niketan Samittee, Jaipur vs. PCIT(Central), Jaipur

ITA 537/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Jan 2024AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Anoop Bhata CA &For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik, CIT
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act"), on the order passed by AO u/s 143(3) by alleging the same as being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Appellant prays that the order of the AO being detailed and well-considered, the revisionary action of Ld. PCIT deserves ... PCIT has further erred in passing revisionary order u/s 263 of the Act. Appellant prays that the order of AO neither being erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, hence the order of Ld. PCIT being without jurisdiction deserves to be quashed. 4. That Ld. PCIT has grossly erred

Richa & Co., Delhi vs. JCIT, Special Range- 17, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed partly with

ITA 3341/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaricha & Co. Vs. Jcit B-34, Phase-1, Special Range-17, Mayapuri Industrial Area, New Delhi. Delhi. Pan No. Aaafr0114L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 263Section 40

system and, therefore, the case was not referred to TPO due to omission. This has resulted in the order passed therein which is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 4. Further on examining the records the Ld. PCIT concluded that the AO has passed the order without ... responded to the notice u/s 263 of the Act, however, Ld. PCIT was not satisfied and found the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue with the following relevant findings: - “The assessment records have been called and perused and it is observed that

M/S Punya Shree Jewellers, S4Eoni Malwa vs. The PCIT-1, Bhopal

In the result, for the reasons mentioned above, the assessment order u/s 143(3) r

ITA 154/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S Punya Shree Jewellers Pcit (1) Main Road, Seoni Malwa Bhopal Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aapfp9682A Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.12.2023

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 69

Income-tax v. Jawahar Bhattacharjee, the Hon'ble high court of Gauhati has held: "The object of section 263 is to correct an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of revenue, as the department has no right to file an appeal against the order of the Assessing Officer. While ... power of the Assessing Officer to make assessment, the same can certainly be exercised when order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue" Further, the Hon'ble High Court of M.P. in the case of CIT Vs Deepak Kumar Garg

Anju Ahuja, New Delhi vs. PCIT Circle 49(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 273/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Nitin Kanwar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Zafarul Haque Tanweer, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54F

facts, you are requested to show cause as to why the assessment order u/s 143(3) may not be set aside as being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. You are hereby once again given the final opportunity of being heard and show cause ... call for and examine the records of a proceeding under the Act and revise any order if he considers the same to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Pr.CIT can take recourse to revision under Section 263 of the Act where the assessment order

Shri Jay Khodiyar Majoor S M Ltd., at Chhalanka, Tal. Visavadar, Dist. Junagadh vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee dismissed

ITA 178/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Hri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri D. M. Rindani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263Section 40Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

Rajkot -1, Rajkot erred in holding that the assessment order dated 27-12-2019 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and thus erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act, in the light of show cause notice ... claim of the assessee. Accordingly, the assessee was asked to demonstrate as to why the assessment order should not be held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. In response to the aforesaid notice, the assessee filed response dated 28.01.2022, in which it was submitted that

Samanvya Education & Charitable Trust, Dhoraji, Dist. Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer(Exemption)-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 16/RJT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 16/Rjt/2021 धििाधरणणवध/Asstt. Year:2015-2016 Samanvya Education & Charitable Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Trust, (Exemption)-1, Nr. Bhola Darshan Apt., Ward-1, Station Road, Rajkot. Junagadh Road, Dhoraji-360410. Pan: Aajts8062M (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Divetia, A.R Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit. Dr सुिणाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13/12/2023 घोवणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 20/12/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:

For Appellant: Shri Samir Divetia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT. DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

Therefore it is held that the assessment order u.s 143(3) dated 13/11/2017 passed by AO in the case of the assessee is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue as discussed above. 8. In the interest of justice, the above referred issue of repayment of loan

The Synthetic & Art Silk Mills Research Association, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exem), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1833/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 10(21)Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(15)Section 263Section 35(1)(ii)

extent the First CIT (Exemption) considered the order of the AO passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and issued a show-cause notice under section 263 of the Act dated 17.02.2021. The assessee submitted before ... provisions of Explanation 2 to section 263 stating that the order passed by the AO under section 144 r.w.s. 263 dated 31.03.2022 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, since the AO did not carry out any enquiry or verification which should have been made and that

Bhagwati Abhilasha Conventure, Mumbai vs. Circle 26(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1698/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalbhagwati Abhilsha Conventure A/30, Patil Bhuvan, N.S.B. Road, Mulund (West), Mumbai-400080 Pan: Aahfb9198D ...... Appellant Vs. Pcit, Mumbai-41, Circle 41(2)(1) R. No. 541, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri M. Subramanian, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Ld. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 22Section 23(5)Section 263

learned P.C.I.T. erred in holding that the order dated 24.02.2021 passed u/s. 143(3) of the act by the A.O. is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue although the same was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 4. the Appellant craves leave to add, alter

Gajesingh, Jodhpur vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Jodhpur

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

ITA 64/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur18 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.64/Jodh/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44A

facts and in the circumstances of the case the Id PCIT-1, Jodhpur grossly erred in holding the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue by treating the inquiry in the wake of a notice under Section 263 is just an empty formality ... order passed by I.T.A. No.64/Jodh/2022 4 Assessment Year: 2017-18 the ld. PCIT considering the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us. 4. The ld. AR filed the written submissions which are kept in the record

Smt. Janki Kishan Hingorani, Rajkot vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 56/RJT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot15 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Smt.Janki Kishan Hingorani The Pr.Cit 6/7, Subham Complex Rajkot-1 Royal Park, University Road बनाम/ Rajkot Rajkot – 380 006 Vs. Gujarat (Appellant ) ( Respondent ) Pan: Pan : Aahph 4774M Assessee By Ms.Amrin Pathan, Ld.Ar Revenue By Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Ld.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 06/12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15/12/2023

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54F

dropping the proceedings u/s. 263 despite the fact that the original order passed by the AO was not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 3. The learned PCIT erred in fact and in law in revising the assessment by invoking powers u/s.263 of the Act which

Shri Babubhai Naranbhai Sakhiya, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Pr. Commr. of Income Tax-1, Rajkot-Gujarat

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

ITA 144/RJT/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot15 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 45(3)Section 54B

assessee. The AO while framing the assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act has not looked into this issue, which is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 4.1. Therefore, a show cause notice under section 263 of the Act was issued ... discussed facts, the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 31.10.2013 for the A.Υ. 2011-12 is held as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. By virtue of powers vested in me u/s. 263 of the IT Act, I cancel the order

Cec-Ubc (Jv), Mumbai vs. PCIT-1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1896/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

erred in law and on facts in holding that the scrutiny assessment order dated 18-01-2021 passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. CEC-UBC (JV) ITA no.1896/Mum./2023 2. The Principal CIT erred in law and on facts in not appreciating ... that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of revenue as a result of which the same cannot be revised under section 263 of the I.T. Act. 3. The Principal CIT erred in not appreciating that revision jurisdiction under section 263 cannot be exercised when issues

Ashok Kumar Gupta, Faridabad vs. Pr. CIT, Faridabad

In the result, the grounds raised are sustained and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 369/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2010-11 Ashok Kumar Gupta, Vs Pr. Cit, 200, Sec.-7A, Faridabad. Faridabad, Haryana. 121 001 Pan: Aalpg5795M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Zafarul Haque Tanweer, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2023 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Is Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 09.03.2020 Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Faridabad (Hereinafter Referred As Ld. Pcit) Arising Out Of The Order Dated 28.11.2017 Passed U/S. 147/148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) By The Ito, Ward 1(1), Faridabad (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao). 2. At The Outset, It Was Pointed Out By Ld. Ar That An Application For Condonation Of Delay Of 324 Days Has Been Filed Supported With An Affidavit. On Hearing Upon The Same, It Comes Up That The Limitation For Filing The Appeal Was Upto 11.05.2020 & Due To Covid-19 Restrictions, In View Of The Directions Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No.03/2020, The Period Between 15.03.2020 & 28.02.2022 Has To Be Excluded For The Purpose Of Calculation Of Limitation & In The Light Of The Aforesaid, The Delay Is Condoned.

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Zafarul Haque Tanweer, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the PCIT erred in holding that assessment order passed under section 147/148, was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue merely because the Ld. PCIT does not agree with the manner of enquiry conducted by the Assessing Officer ... cannot substitute his own reasons and hold the order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 5. That The Assessing Officer had conducted enquiry and after various rounds of hearing and deliberation with the assessee and scrutinizing the documents filed before him as well as submissions

Shree Krishna Builders, Raipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

In the result appeal of the assessee M/s Shree Krishna Colonisers in ITA

ITA 96/RPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 95/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shree Krishna Colonisers V Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax- 0, Nemichand Gali, Ganj Para Ward S Pcit, Raipur-I No.5, Ram Sagar Para, Raipur, 492001, Chhattisgarh Pan: Abffs7335G (Ita No. 96/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shree Krishna Builders Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax- 5/425, Nemichand Gali, Ramsagar Para Pcit, Raipur-I Ward, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Pan: Aacft1716A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) . (""यथ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R. B. Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of : 14.12.2023 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am:

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 133Section 133ASection 142ASection 143(3)Section 153Section 263Section 69C

accepted had rather hushed through the matter and concluded that the assessment order passed by the AO. was found to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 14. We are of the considered view that it is obligatory on the part of the CIT to consider ... whether in the backdrop of the reply/ explanations of the assessee can the order of the A.O. be characterized as both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. We are of the considered view that in the absence of clear observations