“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

Tirath Dass (Prop M/S Fancy Jewelers ), Haryana vs. Pr, CIT, Rohtak

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

ITA 825/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2017-18 Tirath Dass Vs. Principal (Prop M/S. Fancy Jewellers) Commissioner Of Fancy Jewellers, Income Tax, Sarafa Bazar, Rohtak. Karnal 132001. Haryana India (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Advocate Department By: Ms. Sapna Bhatia,Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.08.2023 Date Of 11.09.2023 Pronouncement:

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia,CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 68

liable to be paid @ 60% under section 115BBE of the Act which the Ld. AO failed to do. Therefore, his order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue which he set aside with direction to the Ld. AO to pass fresh order in accordance with law. 7. Aggrieved ... taxed as per provisions of section 115BBE of the Act and having not done so, whether the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 14. At the very outset, we would like to state that an amendment has been brought in section

Raj Kumar Karanwal, Muzaffarnagar vs. Pr.CIT, Dehradun

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 644/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Sankalp Malik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 263

above point during the assessment proceeding and after considering them the assessment order is passed by the Ld AO and is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue It is therefore requested to kindly consider the documents and evidences filed by the assessee during the assessment proceedings

Abhinandan Kedia, Janjgir-Champa vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations herein above

ITA 174/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.174/Rpr/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri S.R.Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

case of the assesse, Ld. Pr. CIT was not justified in holding that the Assessment order passed u/s 143(3) was erroneous and/or prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 3 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case of the assessee Ld. Pr. CIT was not justified ... order is prejudicial to the interest of revenue are not satisfied. 14. The Pr.CIT did not specifically demonstrate how the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to revenues interest especially after recording his satisfaction that no adverse inference is drawn. 15. The Appellant relies on case laws mentioned at S1.No

ACIT-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. The Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Company Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 1895/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Company Acit -2(1)(2) Limited Room No.561, Neville House, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Maharishi Karve Marg, J.N. Heredia Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact2328K Assessee By : Shri Chaitanya Joshi & Ms. Sukanya Jayaram, Ars Revenue By : Shri S. Srinivasu, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.09.2023

For Appellant: Shri Chaitanya Joshi &For Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

order under Section 263 of the Act dated 18th March, 2020, holding that assessment order passed by the learned Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The learned CIT directed the learned Assessing Officer to pass a fresh assessment order after making due enquiries

Vishal Diamonds Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax-5, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed

ITA 878/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Vishal Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., The Pcit-5, 11Th Floor, The Plaza, Hughes Room No. 515, Road, 55, Gamdevi, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400007. Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacv 2799 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Hariom TulsiyanFor Respondent: Mr. Ankush Kapoor, CIT-DR

Section 14ASection 263

order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as the order passed w/s 143(3) by the Ld. A.O. was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the revenue as in the assessment order, the Ld. A.O. has already disallowed the expenditure of Rs 73,54,549/- claimed ... basis of loans received in the show ause notice dated 04.01.2023 on the basis of no which the assessment order is treated as erroneous and prejudicial to no which the assessment order is treated as erroneous and prejudicial to no which the assessment order is treated as erroneous and prejudicial

Gunjan Bhageria, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 909/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 285B

finality to the whole issue. The PCIT concluded that the assessment order passed by the assessing officer accepting the returned income was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue to the extent that the source of cash payments made for the credit card bills remained unexplained. Recording ... regarded as a correct conclusion. 6. Ld. PrCIT thus concluded that the order passed by assessing officer u/s 143(3) is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest to the Revenue. Ld. PrCIT was of the view that the details obtained by the assessing officer in the course

Aarti Sponge and Power Ltd., Raipur vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur - 1, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 78/RPR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Meena, CIT-DR

Section 14ASection 263

enquiry. Order passed u/s 263 is unsustainable and is passed without properly appreciating the facts & evidences on record. The assessment order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 2. Without prejudice to above ground, the revision order passed by Ld. Pr. CIT u/s 263 is barred ... Ayachi ' Chandrasekhar Narsangji 42 Taxmann.com 251 (Guj). When no addition could be made, order of AO cannot be termed to be erroneous or prejudicial. iii) Nothing brought on record b\ Id. Pr. CIT to show how the lender Angad Chemical Pvt. Ltd. is branded as shell company. Arbitrary and unsubstantiated

Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Raipur vs. Mesers Aryan Builders and Developers Private Limited, Raipur

In the result, both appeal of the revenue and cross objection of the assessee stand dismissed in terms of our observations

ITA 201/RPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Kumar Singhania, CA, &For Respondent: Shri S.K.Meena, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 250(4)Section 68

conducted enquiry and issued notices u/s 133(6) to respective shareholders. • There is no such issue of section 263 invocation treating assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue and therefore there is no such question with respect to jurisdiction of CIT for invoking section 263 in instant case ... case of M/s Rajmandir Estates Pvt Ltd was with respect to the jurisdiction of CIT for invoking section 263 treating the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue • The question before the court was leg4ality of invocation of section 263 where assessee with a small amount of authorised

M/S Eternal Heart Care Centre & Research Institute Pvt. Ltd., 3A, Jagatpura Road, Near Jawahar Circle, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Jaipur-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 263/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Parwal, CA &For Respondent: Shri James Kurian, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 271A

PCIT has erred on facts and in law in holding that the assessment order passed u/s 143(2) dated 24- 02-2021 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue as no disallowance u/s 14A read with rule 8D(2), of the Act has been made by incorrectly holding ... PCIT has erred on facts and in law in holding that the assessment order passed u/s 143(2) dated 24-02-2021 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue as assessee has made international transactions with the associate enterprises which have not been reported in audit report Form

ADIT Infrapower & Multitrading Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4944/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 4944 /Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Adit Infrapower & Multitrading Pvt. Vs Pcit, Ltd., Da-08, 2Nd Floor, Vikas Marg, Gurgaon Shakarpur, New Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahca5582H Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.09.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR

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

Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is 2 Adit Infrapower & Multitrading Pvt. Ltd. erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 3. The Ld. PCIT has erred in invoking section 263 of Income Tax Act 1961 by stating that ... convertible debenture. The ld. PCIT has held that the A.O. by not pursued the inquiries to their logical end has made the order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 8. The observation of the ld. PCIT is as under: “On going through the provisions of section

Bombardier Transportation Signal (Thailand) Limited, Thailand vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Taxation 1(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 726/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Anubhav Rastogi, &

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 263Section 90(2)

Bombardier Transportation India Limited (BTIN) falls under the definition of ‘royalty’ and, therefore, the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Assessee filed its objections for revision under section 263 of the Act as under:- “Assessee is a company registered ... holding that the assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act for the assessment year 2016-17 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, with a direction to the Assessing Officer to make fresh assessment. Pursuant to the order passed by the CIT (International

Bombardier Transportation Signal (Thailand ) Limited, Thailand vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1)(2) Int. Taxation, Delhi

In the result, three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 2193/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Anubhav Rastogi, &

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 263Section 90(2)

Bombardier Transportation Signal (Thailand ) Limited, Thailand vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1)(2) Int. Taxation, Delhi

In the result, three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 2192/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Anubhav Rastogi, &

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 263Section 90(2)

Aman Growth Fund Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 659/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh.Anubhav Sharmaita No. 659/Del/2021, A.Y. 2015-16 M/S. Aman Growth Fund Vs. Pr. Cit(Central), Private Limited Delhi-2 L-4, Green Park Extension New Delhi Pan : Aaaca0525B Appellant Respondent

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)

Coordinate Bench squarely applies qua the facts in the present appeal. Therefore the findings of the ld. Ld. PCIT, that assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue cannot be sustained. Grounds are sustained. Accordingly, the appeal of assessee is allowed and the impugned order

M/S. Blue Cross Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. PCIT, Mumbai-3, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1806/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhblue Cross Laboratories Vs. Pcit-3 Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 612, 6 Th Floor, 1, Ground Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Peninsula Chambers, M. K. Road, Peninsula Corporate Mumbai-400020 Park, G. K. Marg, Mumbai-400013 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacb1549G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Krupa R. Gandhi &For Respondent: Shri. S. Sribivasu, DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)Section 80G

invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act and setting aside the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and directing the AO to verify the contentions of the Appellant on disallowance of Corporate Social Responsibility ... deduction u/s 80G on donations out of CSR expenditure. 2. The Appellant prays that it be held that the impugned order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO. I: GROUND NO. II: ADDITION OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON CSR AMOUNTING

Virendra Bhavanji Gala, Mumbai vs. PCIT (Central, Mumbai-4, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1654/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Section 263

supra and accordingly, in terms of Clause-(d) to Explanation 2 to Section 263 are attracted and therefore, it is deemed to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 11. We have heard both the parties at length and also perused the relevant finding given ... justified in holding that the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) read with section 144 A was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and, therefore, the Commissioner of Income Tax was justified in exercising the jurisdiction under section

Nanak Chand & Co., U.P vs. Pr. CIT, Gzbd

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 904/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

fails to his duty. 3. In view of the above, the assessment order passed by the ITO, Ward-2(3)(3), Bulandshahr is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and may be cancelled or modified by invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Income ... hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee made various submissions and pointed out that the assessment order is neither shown to be erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. It was submitted with reference to the paper book filed that necessary inquiries were specifically carried out on both

Yogesh Kumar, Panipat vs. Pr, CIT, Rohtak

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 589/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 44ASection 68

himself was not confirmed as to which section out of 68/69/69A/69B/69C was applicable as such treating the order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue is wrong, illegal and uncalled for. 3. The surrendered income was business income and had rightly been assessed ... made at the rate of 60% u/s 115BBE of the Act, which he failed to do. Therefore, the order of the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue. Consequently, a show-cause notice u/s 263(1) was issued to the assessee. 6.2 In reply to the above show

Rivet Electricals Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. Pr.CIT- Faridabad, Faridabad

The Appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1885/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Initiating The Proceeding As No Enquiry Was Made By Pr. Cit In Arriving At Conclusion Which Is Contrary In View Of The Jurisdictional & Other High Courts & The Apex Court. D. That Once The Sums Have Been Received Through Banking Channels & Complete Evidences Was Provided During The Course Of The Assessment, Suspicion Raised Purely On Assumptions Is Wholly Unsustainable In Law.

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

material on record the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act accepting the returned income filed by assessee being neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue and as such the order passed u/s 263 of the Act directing to make a fresh assessment is without ... substance, the contention of Ld. Counsel for the assessee is that order so revised by Ld. Pr. CIT is not erroneous and prejudicial of the interests of the Revenue. The Ld. Pr. CIT has revised the assessment primarily on the ground that the AO had completed the scrutiny assessment without

M/S. Dharti Engineers, Amreli vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 198/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 198/Rjt/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) M/S. Dharti Engineers The Pcit-1 बनाम/ Sardar Nagar Street No.1, Rajkot Vs. Chakkargadh Road,Amreli - 365601 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadfd8555E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D. M. Rindani, A.R. Respondent By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit.D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing 22/08/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 29/08/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.01.2022 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Rajkot (In Short ‘The Pcit’) Holding The Assessment Order Dated 10.12.2019 Passed By The Dc/Acit, Cir-3(1), Rkt Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As To ‘The Act’) Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & Setting Aside The Issue To The File Of The Ld. Ao With A Direction Upon Him To Pass A Fresh Assessment Only To The Extent Of The Issues In Respect Of The Provision Of Section 40A(3) Of The Act With Proper Enquiry & Verification Of The Claim & Its Genuineness For A.Y. 2017-18. Ita No. 198/Rjt/2022 (M/S. Dharti. Engineers Vs. Pcit) A. Y. 2017-18 - 2- 2. The Short Fact Leading To The Case Is This That The Assessee By Paying Huge Cash In Excess Of Rs.20,000/- Alleged To Have Violated The Provision Of Section 40A(3) Of The Act. The Details Whereof Has Been Reproduced In The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) In The Following Manner:

For Appellant: Shri D. M. Rindani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT.D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)

DC/ACIT, CIR-3(1), RKT under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to ‘the Act’) erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and setting aside the issue to the file of the Ld. AO with a direction upon him to pass a fresh ... order passed by the Ld. PCIT holding the order passed by the Ld. AO dated 10.12.2019 under Section 142(3) of the Act erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. ITA No. 198/Rjt/2022 (M/s. Dharti. Engineers vs. PCIT) A. Y. 2017-18 - 16- 9. Upon considering the documents