← 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

Ravindera Hira Purchase and Finance Pvt. Ltd., Haryana vs. Pr, CIT, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1198/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N. K. Choudhrydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Smt. Rano Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. T. Kipgen, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

such, the order passed by the Assessing Officer vide order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 21.03.2016 was clearly erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, and therefore, proceedings u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were initiated and show cause notice

Aruna Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-26, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5338/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. C. S. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 250Section 251Section 254Section 2BSection 54BSection 56

respectful submission is that the income assessed by the AO vide an assessment order which according to the Ld CIT (A) was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, can not be the enhanced by the learned CIT(A) u/s 251(1)(a). 10. The words enhance the assessment

Madaan Associates, New Delhi vs. Pr, CIT Delhi-15, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 974/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Ms. Rano Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

account of unexplained cash deposit made during demonetization period. Subsequent, to the assessment, it was noticed that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue for the following reason. “On perusal of the record it is found that the AO has obtained the details of unsecured ... Tribunal took the view that the CIT(A) had not undertaken any such exercise reaching to the conclusion that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. In short, on the facts and materials on record, the Appellate Tribunal recorded a finding that the PCIT

Shrimati. Lata Narang, Jalandhar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 35/ASR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar02 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Rajinder Kaur, CIT- DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 5(2)Section 6

verifications/enquiries have not been made by the A.O. at assessment stage. Therefore, the order passed by the Assessing Officer is held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The case is, therefore, set aside to the file of the A.O. for fresh assessment on the above ... need verification at assessment stage and therefore the order passed by the AO 7 Lata Narang v. Pr. CIT is held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Here the PCIT failed to appreciate and consider the contents of the reply dated 19/3/2021 filed before him. Copy

Sri.Mohammed Haris, Thrissur vs. Pr CIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 58/COCH/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora (Accountant Member), Shri Sandeep Gosain (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri B. Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prasanth V.K., CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

after hearing the assessee. This is as the assessment in the first instance was made without doing so, rendering it for that reason erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 3. Before us, the assessee’s case, through his ld. counsel, Shri Mohan, CA, was that

M/S. Bhagabati Buil & Construction Pvt. Ltd, Cuttack vs. Pr. CIT-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 114/CTK/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. M/S. Bhagabati Bhagabati Build Build & & Vs. Pr. Cit, Constructions Pvt Ltd., At: Constructions Pvt Ltd., At: Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-1 Madhupatna, Po: Link Road, Madhupatna, Po: Link Road, Ps:Madhupatna, Cuttack Ps:Madhupatna, Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaecb 1801 D (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sandeep Kumar Jena, Ar Sandeep Kumar Jena, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/0 02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/0 /02/2023 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Pr. Cit, Cit, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-1 Dated 27.11.2019 27.11.2019 In Appeal No.Itba/Ast/S/144/2019 Itba/Ast/S/144/2019-20/1021143134(1) For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year2017- 18. 2. Shri Sandeep Kumar Jena, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri Sandeep Kumar Jena, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri Sandeep Kumar Jena, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam ,Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue. M.K.Gautam ,Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Kumar Jena, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT
Section 144Section 263

claim by the appellant. The copy of the ITR with computation of income is enclosed herewith. Therefore the order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue, rather is beneficial to the interest of revenue due to substantial reduction of refund. Therefore the Ld. Pr. CIT wrongly implied ... uls.144 of the Act. That under the above factual matrix the assessment order passed u/s. 144 of the Act cannot be leveled as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and the Ld. Pr. C.I.T, go beyond his revision jurisdiction by setting aside the assessment order on fantasy grounds

Shri Prashantsinh Ajitsinh Chauhan, Rajkot vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 123/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot24 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Doshi, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Ld. CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263

there was evident lack of inquiry on the issue. Accordingly, ld. PCIT held that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. While passing the order, the PCIT made the following observations:- “As has been discussed in preceding paras that ... assessee is in appeal before us against the order passed by PCIT holding that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Before us, the counsel for the assessee drew our attention to page no. 16 of the paper book (reply

Corus Vitrified Pvt. Ltd., Morbi vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 1, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 119/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot24 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr. D.R
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 68Section 69C

well as on facts in not considering the submissions of the appellant on the strength of which the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue and therefore, the provisions of Section 263 of the Act were not applicable to the case of the appellant ... that two essentials condition for invoking the provisions of section 263 of I.T. Act are that the order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 4. The assessee is in appeal before us against the order passed by PCIT

Bhavani Industries, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Addl. Commr. Income Tax, Range-2, Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 72/RJT/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot24 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Anadkat, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT-D.R
Section 263Section 80I

inquiry by the Assessing Officer, the assessment order was set aside with the following directions:- “17) As discussed above, the order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, and the same is set aside. The Assessing Officer is directed to conduct a proper inquiry and verification ... that since the Assessing Officer had enquired into all details during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessment order cannot be held to erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. In response, the Departmental Representative placed reliance on the observations made by the ld. PCIT

Radha Govind Public Welfare Society, Ramgarh vs. CIT(Exemption), Patna

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 66/PAT/2018[15-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna23 Feb 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Rinku Singh, Addl. CIT, DR
Section 12ASection 142Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

well settled law that for invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act, both the conditions that the order must be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue needs to be satisfied. This ratio stands laid down by various Hon’ble Courts. 6.2. For this, let us take ... possible and the Assessing Officer has taken one view with which the CIT does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the revenue unless the view taken by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law. 9 Radha Govind Public Welfare Society

Lt. Suresh Chandra Kataria Througn L/H Rakesh Kataria, Ratlam vs. PCIT Indore-1, Indore

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 90/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Mongra, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. D.R
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

erred in law and on facts in assuming jurisdiction u/s. 263 and further erred in holding the assessment order of AO dt. 23.12.2019 erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 2. That in the case and in view of the matter action of Ld. Pr. CIT erred

Nya International, Surat vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 1, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 57/SRT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.57/Srt/2022 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) Nya International, Vs. The Pcit-1, Unit No.360, Plot No.239, Sez, Gidc Surat. Sachin, Suarat – 394230. (Assessee) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahfn1681M

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 263

erred in passing the order u/s.263, although the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 2. It is therefore prayed that above order passed by Pr. CIT u/s. 263 may please be quashed ... disallowed the whole claim of deduction u/s 10AA of the I.T. Act of Rs.87,21,44,414/-. Accordingly, the assessment order is neither erroneous not prejudicial. Observation of ld PCIT: The assessee's contention is not acceptable as the Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction claimed u/s 10AA of Rs.87

Dineshchandra Narharishankar Upadhyay, Surat vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 120/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.120/Srt/2022 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Dineshchandra Narharishankar Principal Commissioner Of Upadhyay, 5/1203, Main Income-Tax-1, Room No. 123, Vs. Road, Haripura, Surat-395003 Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacpu 1094 J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Hiren M. Diwan, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By: Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Cit-D.R

For Appellant: Shri Hiren M. Diwan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ravinder Sindhu, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54F

Counsel contended that assessing officer applied his mind and took a plausible view, hence order passed by the Assessing Officer is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 12. Shri Diwan, also pleaded that just because the Assessing Officer has passed the order in brief and does ... commercial nature and such nature was not discussed in the assessment order. Therefore, assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and hence the order passed by ld PCIT may be upheld. 14. In short rejoinder, Shri Diwan, submitted that during

Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd, Surat vs. Pr. CIT-3, Vadodara

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 178/SRT/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.178/Srt/2020 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Vs. The Pcit-3 & Chemicals Ltd., Surat. Narmada House, Narmadanagar, Bharuch – 392015. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacg8372Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Yogesh Shah, Ar Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 03/01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22/02/2023

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 801Section 80I

holding that the order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act (Act) was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and thereby restoring the issue of disallowance u/s 14A for fresh adjudication. It is submitted it be so held ... that the assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144C of the Act dated 29/11/2017 passed by the ACIT, Circle-1, Bharuch is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Accordingly, a show cause notice u/s. 263 of the Act was issued on ITA No.178/SRT/2020/AY.2014-15 Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers

Shri Sunny Chadrakant Fudhanawala, Surat vs. The Dy. Commissioner Income Tax Officer, Cir3(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 271/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.271/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Sunny Chandrakant Deputy Commissioner Of Fudhnawala, 47, Matawadi, Income Tax, Circle-3(3), Vs. Nr. Bhavani Mata Mandir, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate Lambe Hanuman Road, Nr. New Civil Hospital Road, Surat-395006 Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahpf 6359 G (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Manish J Shah, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit-D.R

For Appellant: Shri Manish J Shah, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54F

after detailed scrutiny. 2. The Principal C.I.T further erred in holding that the Sec. 143(3) order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and in the process, set aside the assessment order back to the Assessing Officer with a direction ... No.271/SRT/2019 A.Y.14-15 Sh. Sunny C. Fudhnawala However, Assessing Officer has not verified the same. Therefore, assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as per Explanation 2(a) of section 263 of the Act. Further, as the immovable property transferred

Shri Rajendrakumar Kantilal Patel, Surat vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 354/SRT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 50

learned CIT erred in initiating the revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act, by holding that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and hence, the order passed u/s 263 of the Act is without jurisdiction, bad in law, illegal, invalid, arbitrary and liable ... appeal under consideration, Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has raised three issues and stated that order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The facts relating to these three issues are narrated below. 4. Facts relating to issue no. 1: The assessee

B K Textiles, Cuttack vs. PCIT-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 40/CTK/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack21 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. B.K.Textiles, At: Nandi M/S. B.K.Textiles, At: Nandi Vs. Pr. Cit, Bhubaneswar Pr. Cit, Bhubaneswar -1 Sahi, Buxi Bazar, Cuttack Sahi, Buxi Bazar, Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aahfm 3186 G (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Keshav Dubey, Ar Keshav Dubey, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 21/0 02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/0 /02/2023 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Aga This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Inst The Order Of The Ld Pr.Cit,Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-1,Dated 2.3.2022 In In Appeal Appeal No. No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2021 Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2021-22/1040258850(1) For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2017- 18. 2. Shri Keshav Dubey, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri Keshav Dubey, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri Keshav Dubey, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue. M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Keshav Dubey, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271D

submission that as all these issues had been examined in-depth by the AO, the assessment order could not be said to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 4. In reply, ld CIT DR submitted that in respect of sundry creditors, he had issued a letter ... hold that neither the assessee had filed the reconciliation statements nor any enquiry was conducted by your predecessor AO making the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 4. The Hon’ble members of the ITAT, Cuttack have directed that in this connection the concerned AO should

Shri Mukesh Chand Mal Pitti, Gandhidham-Kutch vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 124/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot21 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal. Total Tax Effect (See Note Below)

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT-D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

took the submissions of the assessee on record and passed an order holding that the assessing Officer has passed an order which is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and accordingly set aside the same. 4. The assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed ... assessment proceedings and accordingly, Principal CIT has erred in facts and in law in holding that the order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. 5. In response, the DR placed reliance on the observations made by the Principal

Infoaxon Technologies (India) P.Ltd, Meerut vs. Pr, CIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1025/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 90

assessee’s business. Thus, pointing out various deficiencies in the assessment order, learned PCIT was of the view that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Accordingly, he issued a show-cause-notice to the assessee to explain as to why the assessment order ... concluded that while completing the assessment, the Assessing Officer has not made proper inquiry and verification, which made the assessment order both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Thereafter, referring to various judicial precedents, learned PCIT set aside the assessment order with a direction to make

Shri Kuldip Singh, Kapurthala vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 38/ASR/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

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

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

Assessed. Issue requisite documents along with a copy of this order to the assessee.” 4. The Ld. PCIT held the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue by observing as under: The perusal of assessment record in the above mentioned case for the assessment year