“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

Sis Prosegur Holdings Pvt Ltd, Patna vs. Pr.CIT-1, Patna

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 47/PAT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna18 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.47/Pat/2021 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sis Prosegur Holdings Pvt. Ltd...…………....….........…..........….…… Appellant Annapoorna Bhawan, Patliputra Telephone Exchange, Kurji, Patna, Bihar-800010 [Pan: Aaucs7524A] Vs. Pcit-1, Patna..................................…………........….....…...…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Nageswar Rao, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Rinku Singh, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 18, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 25.03.2021 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Patna [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pcit’] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Ld. Pcit While Examining Assessment Records Found That The Assessee During The Year Had Issued 900000 Equity Shares Of Rs.10/- At A Premium Of Rs.90/- Per Share Totalling Rs.100/- Per Share. The Ld. Pcit Further Observed As Under: It Is To Be Noted That, During The Year Under Consideration, The Provisions Of Section 56(2)(Viib) Were Applicable As Per Which If Aggregate Consideration For Issuance Of Shares Is More Than Fair Market

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

infirmities and should not have been accepted. The assessment order made by the AO relying on the valuation report without conducting enquires/verification is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Accordingly, the assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 for AY 2015-16 dated ... jurisdiction by the PCIT u/s 263 of the Act on various ground, inter alia, that the order of the Assessing Officer was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and that the Assessing Officer had made due enquiries at the time of framing the assessment order

Sanjay Gupta, Panipat vs. Pr, CIT, Rohtak

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

ITA 587/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT- DR

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 68

further erred in holding that the assessment order dated 16.12.2019 framed under section 143(3) of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 3. Representatives of both the sides were heard at length. Case records carefully perused. Judicial decisions relied upon by the rival representatives ... view of the above, the PCIT was of the opinion that the assessment completed by the Assessing Officer is not only erroneous but prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The same is, therefore, required to be suitably amended /modified u/s 263 of the Act. According to the PCIT

Adhyakshya Lok Mela Amlikaran Sammittee, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Rajkot

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for the statistical purposes

ITA 425/RJT/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy, आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 424 & 425/Rjt/2018 वष"/Asstt. Years: 2009-2010 & 2010-2011 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Adhyakshya Lok Mela Amlikaran Ito Sammittee Vs. Ward-1(2), A.D. Vyas & Co., Kotecha Nagar Rajkot Main Road, Opp. Kotecha Girls High School, Rajkot-360001 Pan: Aabaa0922F Assessee By : Shri D. M. Rindani, A.R Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, D.R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/04/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/05/2023 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Common Orders Passed Under Section 263 Of The Act By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Rajkot Dated 24/03/2014 Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Here-In- After Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2010- 11. First, We Take Up Ita 424/Rjt/2018, An Appeal By The Assessee For The Ay 2009-10 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Ground No 1 Order Of The Learned Cit 1 Rajkot Reopening The Assessment U/S 263 Is Totally Bad On Facts As Well On Law. Learned Cit Ought To Have Considered The Fact That The Assessee Is Already Assessed U/S 143(3) By Ito 1(2) Rajkot.

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

Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

show that it empower the Commissioner to set aside order passed by the Assessing Officer. Thus, Commissioner on his satisfaction that order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, then he can remit the issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. He can himself

Adhyakshya Lok Mela Amlikaran Sammittee, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Rajkot

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for the statistical purposes

ITA 424/RJT/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 May 2023AY 2009-10

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

Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

Bombay Footwear Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Pr. CIT -14, Mumbai

In the result, impugned order is quashed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1645/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhvk-Vk-La- 1645@Eaqcbz@2021 ¼Fu-Oa- 2015&16½ Bombay Footwear Private Limited Deonar Village, Behind Telecom Factory, Deonar, Mumbai-400 088 ..... Vihykfkhz/Appellant Pan No. Aaacb2162P Cuke Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-14 Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, ..... Izfroknh/Respondent Mumbai-400 020

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji &For Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT-DR &

Section 142(1)Section 263

and/or fresh determination can be directed by the Commissioner only after coming to the conclusion that the earlier finding of the ITO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Without doing so, he does not get the power to set aside the assessment. In the instant case ... revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act P a g e | 13 BOMBAY FOOTWEAR PVT. LTD. is, the order of AO should be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Both the conditions have to be satisfied simultaneously. In the instant case, the Revenue has failed to show that

Ntpc Electric Supply Company Ltd., New Delhi vs. PCIT-08, New Delhi

ITA 4708/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2023AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(3)Section 263

despite the fact that even after thorough examination, no specific findings have been given on the issue of how the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT has erred both on facts ... accrual of interest was not applicable in case of assessee and Ld. AO has not done anything which can be considered to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The interest income on refund for AY 2011-12 in any case would be now determined on finalization

Shri Ravjibhai Becharbhai Dhameliya, Surat vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, -1, Surat

ITA 112/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.110/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Bhikhabhai Rajabhai Dhameliya Principal Commissioner Of 13, Krishnanagar Society, Income Tax-1, Surat, Aaykar Vs. Varachha Road, Surat-395006 Bhavan, Majuira Gate, Surat- 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aappd 7018 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54B

Assessing Officer passed u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 05.12.2019 for the year under consideration although said order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject ... applied his mind and then framed the assessment order, therefore such assessment order which was framed after making due enquiry should not be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 10. Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, also submitted that in case of one of the co-owners, namely, Shri Ravjibhai

Dakshaben Shailesh Dhameliya, Surat vs. The PCIT-1, Surat

ITA 111/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 May 2023AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54B

Bhikhabhai Rajabhai Dhamaniya, Surat vs. The PCIT, Surat-1, Surat

ITA 110/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 May 2023AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54B

Dbs Bank Ltd India Branches (Now Amalgamated With Dbs Bank India Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (It)-Mumbai-2, Mumbai

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

ITA 1096/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2018-19

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

Section 119Section 143(3)Section 263Section 286Section 92C

been issued by CBDT issued u/s 119 of the Act. Hence, the Ld CIT(IT) held that the impugned assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue as per clause (c) of Explanation 2 to sec. 263 of the Act. Accordingly, the Ld CIT(IT) initiated revision ... instructions given in it. Accordingly, the Ld D.R contended that non-compliance of the instructions issued by CBDT would make the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue as per the Explanation 2(c) of sec. 263 of the Act. 5. We heard rival contentions and perused

Kuldeep, Haryana vs. Pr, CIT, Rohtak

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 779/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Dr. B. R. R. Kumarkuldeep Vs. Pr. Cit, S/O. 978/11, Vpo Pirthala, Rohtak (Haryana) Tehsil-Tohana, Distt. Fatehabad, Haryana, India (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Elupk1367K

For Appellant: Shri Prem Rajpal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

order without affording due opportunity of hearing to the assessee and thus, he was not correct and justified in holding assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue without considering the written submission/ reply filed by the assessee and affidavit of father of the assessee Sh. Richpal ... termination of assessment proceedings he informed the AO of Sh. Richpal Singh also. Therefore, the assessment order cannot be alleged as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The ld AR submitted that the impugned revisionary order may kindly be set aside by restoring the assessment order. 3. Replying

Hema Raman, Haryana vs. AO Ward-1, Panipat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1012/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Hari Om Jindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 68

assailed the order of the Pr.CIT under Section 263 of the Act on the ground that the assessment order under revision is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and therefore, the Pr.CIT lacks jurisdiction to invoke the powers conferred under Section ... 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 interest of the Revenue. The Pr.CIT can however take recourse to revision under Section 263 of the Act only where the assessment

M/S Torrent Roofing System, Hoshiarpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4, Hoshiarpur

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical

ITA 84/ASR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143Section 263Section 40(1)(ia)

royalty charges worth Rs. 27,04,192/- was not investigated by the Assessing Officer. Hence, the order of the Assessing Officer was clearly erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 5.1 Hence, both the limbs of Malabar Industrial Co. Vs. CIT 243 ITR 83 (S.C.) are satisfied. Hence ... which the Commissioner does not agree with and which results in a loss of revenue, it cannot be treated as erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of revenue, unless the view taken by the Assessing Officer is completely unsustainable in law. CIT v. Max India Limited [2007] 295ITR

Fusion Jewellery Mfg. Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 9, Mumbai

ITA 3853/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2023AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Fenil BhattFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57Section 92C

facts in holding that the order dated 29.03.2016 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act by the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. 3. The Ld. Pr. CIT has erred in law and on facts in holding that the order passed ... allowing deduction u/s. 57 of the Act in respect of interest expenditure of INR14,22,847/- was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. 4. The Ld. Pr. CIT has erred in law and on facts in setting aside the order passed

Kaur Kookies (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr, CIT, Delhi-4, New Delhi

Appeal are allowed

ITA 1119/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 263Section 36

which were considered by the Learned Assessing officer using his understanding and discretionary powers in framing the assessment order. The order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and the all the points raised in notice u/s section 263 have been duly taken care ... after making all possible enquiries had accepted the claim of the assessee. then such an order of assessment cannot be alleged as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 15 Further in a case where two views are possible and the learned Assessing Officer has taken a view with

Jubilant Pharmova Limited (Erstwhile Jubilant Life Sciences Limited), Gajraula vs. Pr. CIT Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1071/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. N.K Choudhryjubilant Pharmova Limited Vs. The Pr. Cit, (Erstwhile Jubilant Life Bareilly, Sciences Limited) Uttar Pradesh 244 001 Bhartiagram, Gajraula Jyotiba Phoolay Nagar, Amroha, Up – 244 223 Pan No. Aabcv 0200 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri K.M Gupta, Adv. Ms. Shruti Khimta, Ar Revenue By Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.05.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25.03.2022 Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Bareilly Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case As Culled Out From The Material On Record Are As Under :- Jubilant Pharmova Limited Vs. Pcit 2 3. The Assessee Is A Company Stated To Be Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Sale Of Chemicals, Chemical Intermediates, Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients & Generation Of Power. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For A.Y 2016-17 On 28.11.2016 Declaring Total Of Income At Rs. 54,63,38,840/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny & Thereafter Assessment Was Framed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(3) Vide Order Dated 17.02.2020 & The Total Income Was Determined At Rs. 95,52,38,865/-.

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263

perusing the assessment records PCIT was of the view that the assessment order framed by the AO u/s. 143 r.w.s. 144C(3) was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. He thereafter issued notice u/s. 263 of the Act, which was sent to the assessee on 08.03.2022. PCIT after ... dated 17.02.2020 and directing the assessing officer for denovo assessment by erroneously holding that the assessment so framed is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue under the provisions of section 263 of the Act, thereby, rendering the impugned order as bad in law. 2. On the facts

Reliable Educational Alliance Society, New Delhi vs. CIT(E), Lucknow

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 834/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Reliable Educational Vs. Commissioner Of Income Alliance Society, Tax (Exemption), C/O- M/S. Rra Taxindia, Lucknow D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi Pan :Aaatr7920C (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

crore, learned CIT issued a show-cause notice to the assessee requiring him to explain, why the assessment order, being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, should not be set aside. In response to the show-cause notice issued, the assessee filed detailed submissions explaining the factual aspect ... learned CIT observed that the Assessing Officer has neither made proper inquiry, nor applied his mind, which made the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Accordingly, he set aside the assessment order with a direction to pass a fresh order after obtaining required details and making

3I Infotech Limited, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT- 15, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3705/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm 3I Infotech Limited Pcit-15 Tower No.5, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, 3Rd To 6Th Floors, Vs. International Infotech Park, Mumbai-400 020 Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci5205Q Assessee By : Shri Bhupendra Karkhanis, Shri Jay Dharod, Ars Revenue By : Ms. Samruddhi Hande, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.02.203 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2023

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra KarkhanisFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi Hande, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

learned transfer pricing officer and therefore the learned PCIT does not have any power to hold that such an order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 3I Infotech Limited; A.Y. 13-14 09. The learned CIT DR vehemently supported the order of the learned PCIT

Arvi Lights, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 47(5), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 578/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2017-18 Arvi Lights, Vs Ito, 1783/1, Kundan Mansion, Ward 47(5), Bhagirath Place, Delhi. Chandni Chowk, Delhi – 110 006. Pan: Abbfa8083H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Raghunath, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2023 Order Per M. Balaganesh, Am: This Appeal In Ita No.578/Del/2022 For Ay 2017-18 Arises Out Of The Order Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi-10 [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Pcit’, In Short] In Din & Order No.Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2021-22/1039802410(1) Dated 16.02.2022 Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 31.05.2019 By The Ld. Assessing Officer, Ward 47(5), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Ao’). 2. The Only Issue To Be Decided In This Appeal Is That Whether The Ld.Pcit Was Justified In Assumption Of Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act, In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Instant Case.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Raghunath, Sr. DR

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

revised by the ld.PCIT by invoking the revision jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act by treating the order passed by the AO as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue on the ground that the ld. AO had not enquired about the cash deposits made by the assessee ... during those two months. Since the ld. AO has not examined properly the source of those cash deposits, his order was treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue by the ld. PCIT. 4. The assessee filed detailed written submissions before the ld.PCIT vide letter dated

Bimla Devi, Panipat vs. ITO, Panipat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 914/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2017-18 Bimla Devi, Vs Ito, H.No.398/12, Parav Mohalla, Ward 1, Samalkha, Panipat, Panipat, Haryana – 124 001. Haryana – 132101. Pan: Aalca0777A

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kaushik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Raghunath, Sr. DR

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

source of cash deposits made by the assessee during the year. Accordingly , he treated the order passed by the ld. AO as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Aggrieved by this revision order u/s 263 of the Act passed by the ld. PCIT, the assessee ... PCIT concluded that adequate enquiries with regard to the cash gifts received were not conducted by the ld. AO , which makes his order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The ld. PCIT also invoked the provisions of Explanation 2 to section 263 of the Act directly