“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

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

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

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

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

For Respondent: Shri. M. Rajan, CIT

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

Income-tax Officer, Non- Corporate Ward 12(1), Chennai (hereinafter referred to as AO) u/s. 143(3) of the Act, dated 30.11.2017 as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue; 3. The PCIT-8, Chennai erred in holding that the AO has failed to make necessary enquiry ... applicable to other than Goods Transporters; 4. That the PCIT -8, Chennai failed to appreciate that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and thus u/s. 263 is bad in law, ultra- vires in excess of and/ or in want of jurisdiction

Malshej Nagri Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd, Mumbai vs. Principle Comm. of Income Tax, Thane

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

ITA 1126/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalemalshej Nagari Sahakari Vs. Pr.Cit-1, Patsanstha Ltd, B Wing, 6Th Floor, 9, Ground Floor, Sainidhi Ashar It Park, Road Co-Op, Hsg, Society Ltd, 16Z, Wagle Ind Near Saraswati Engish, Estate, School, Tekdi Bangla, Thane – 400604. Thane - 400601 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaam9019N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Subodhratnaparkhi.Ar Respondent By : Shri. Sanjeev Kashyap.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 17.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -1 (Pr.Cit), Thane Passed U/S 263 Of The Act Dated 21.03.2022. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri.SubodhRatnaparkhi.ARFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjeev Kashyap.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(d)

erred in holding the order framed by the assessing officer u/s 143(3) of the I. Tax Act on 12.11.2019 to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue as per section 263 of the I. T. Act, 1961 and accordingly the assumption of jurisdiction ... holding the order framed by the assessing officer u/s 143(3) of the I. Tax Act on 12.11.2019 to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, when as per the order u/s 263 itself, the ld Pr. CIT held a view that claim of the appellant for deduction

Sr Trust, Madurai vs. PCIT(Central), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 213/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

For Respondent: Mr. AR.V.Sreenivasan

Section 12ASection 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263

invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act, when the impugned Assessment made under section 143(3) of the Act is not 'erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue' and thereby erred in setting aside the Order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s.143 ... arguments of the assessee before the PCIT are that the assessment order passed by the AO u/s.144 r.w.s.153C of the Act, is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to M/s.S.R.Trust :: 4 :: the interest of the Revenue. Because, all four issues questioned by yourself had been thoroughly examined by the AO during

Consolidated Marketing Co, Coimbatore vs. The ACIT, Non-Corporate Circle-2, Coimbatore

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

ITA 141/CHNY/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 141/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2016-17 Consolidated Marketing Co., The Assistant Commissioner Of 189, Bashyakaralu Road East, Vs. Income Tax, R.S. Puram, Coimbatore 641 002. Non Corporate Circle 2, Coimbatore 641 002. [Pan:Aakfc5594P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Coimbatore, Dated 27.03.2021 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2016-17 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263

dated 12.03.2021, the ld. PCIT has observed that the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Accordingly, the ld. PCIT set aside the assessment order and directed the Assessing Officer to carry out fresh assessment in accordance ... Estate amounting to ₹.1,99,38,277/-, completed the assessment. Therefore, 3 I.T.A. No.141/Chny/21 the order passed by the Assessing Officer is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and prayed that the order passed by the ld. PCIT under section

R K Powergen P Ltd, Chennai vs. PCIT Central I Chennai, Chennai

In the result, the primary condition to invoke the revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 remains unsatisfied

ITA 259/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri V. Ravichandran (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthilkumaran (CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

earned by the assessee. 4. Subsequently, upon perusal of case records, Ld. Pr.CIT, invoking the provisions of Sec.263, held the order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. The stem from the observation that Rule 8D was amended with effect from 02.06.2016 and as per the amendment

Tamilnadu Cements Corporation Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 227/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.227/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S.Tamilnadu Cements – V. The Dy. Commissioner- Corporation Ltd., Of Income Tax, 5Th Floor, Aavin Illam, Corporate Circle-3(1), No.3A, Chennai. Pasumpon Muthuramalinga- Thevar Road, Rathna Nagar, Nandanam, Chennai.

For Appellant: Mr.I. Dinesh, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.M. Rajan, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263

order of revision by the CIT is wrong, illegal and opposed to facts as the· order u/s 143(3) is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 2. The CIT failed to note-that the order u/s.143(3) is under appeal before CIT(A) and hence ... Revenue. 5. In response to the show cause notice, the assessee submitted that the assessment order passed by the AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, because, the AO has considered two issues questioned in the revision proceedings while completing the assessment order u/s.143

Gnana Shale Souhardha Co-Operative Limited, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-6, Bengaluru

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

ITA 887/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Sri.S.V.Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Susan D George, CIT –DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 63

invoking the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act 'and setting aside the order of the learned assessing officer as being "erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue". 4. The learned PCIT is not justified in law in holding that the order passed by the assessing officer ... learned PCIT failed to appreciate that the provisions of section 263 of the Act shall be attracted only when the order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and since the order passed under section 143(3) of the Act was not erroneous, much less prejudicial

M/S. Mahavir Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Pr. Comm of Income Tax (Central ). Pune, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1314/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 263

Commissioner of Income Tax erred in holding that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s .143(3) of the Act was erroneous and/or prejudicial to the interests of the revenue within the meaning of the provisions of section 263 to the extent of AO's action ... investments were not examined by the ld. AO. On these two grounds, the ld. PCIT treated the order of the ld. AO as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and sought to revise the said order by invoking his revision jurisdiction u/s.263

Tata Aia Life Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Comm. of Income Tax, Rane-8, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1285/MUM/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2017-2018

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 253Section 263Section 44

Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned AO') [hereinafter referred to as the 'Assessment Order] for AY 2017-18 as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 1.3. In concluding that the learned AO has made no inquiry regarding the taxability of the income earned by the Appellant

Infiniti Retail Ltd, Mumbai vs. Chief CIT (OSD) (I/C. Pr. CIT - 2 ), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3685/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 32(1)

grants power to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax or Commissioner of Income Tax to revise orders which are erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The object is to vest a supervisory jurisdiction in the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner to revise those orders passed by his subordinates ... possible and the Income-tax Officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law."  The Karnataka High Court

Derby Developers P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT- 14, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 3316/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Derby Developers Vs. Pr.Cit-14 Private Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, 203, Capri Building, M.K. Road, Opposite Hdil Towers, Mumbai - 400020 Anant Kanekar Marg, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccd2140F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Mahita Nair Date Of Hearing 31.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 31.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Am: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Pr.Cit- 14, Mumbai, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The A.O. U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y. 2014-15. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mahita Nair

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

dated 29/03/2019 by setting aside the assessment order dated 30/11/2016 passed by the Assessing Office (AO) by holding that the same is erroneous and prejudicial to the ITA No. 3316/Mum/2019 A.Y. 2014-15 2 M/s Derby Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr.CIT-14 interests of the revenue, the same is passed ... claim and same were duly verified by the Ld AO while passing original assessment proceedings hence order of Ld AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and hence the order passed u/s 263 is wholly unreasonable and bad in law, which may kindly be quashed

Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Mumbai vs. JCIT, Central Range-8, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is having ITA No

ITA 6124/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Dcit-Cc 8(3), 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Jcit, Central Range-8, 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Rushabh Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit- Dr : Date Of Hearing 15/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2022

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Rushabh Mehta, AR

Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 50Section 68Section 69C

assessment year 2008 assessment year 2008-09 and holding that the same is erroneous and 09 and holding that the same is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue came to be passed. The assessee Revenue came to be passed. The assessee

Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Range-8 (3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is having ITA No

ITA 6123/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Rushabh Mehta, AR

Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 50Section 68Section 69C

Dilip Kothari, Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bangalore

In the result, all three appeals are partly allowed

ITA 405/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 132Section 153CSection 263

conducted any enquiry with regard to the cash paid and to that extent he treated the assessment order as being erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. 5. The assessee in response to show-cause notice submitted that the statement recorded from Mr. Pramod Bhandari was subsequently retracted ... assessee and proceeded to issue an order u/s. 263 by holding that the AO had done no enquiry and therefore the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue as per provisions of clause (a) & (b) of Explanation 2 to section 263. The PCIT set aside the order

Dilip Kothari, Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bangalore

In the result, all three appeals are partly allowed

ITA 404/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 132Section 153CSection 263

Dilip Kothari, Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bangalore

In the result, all three appeals are partly allowed

ITA 403/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 132Section 153CSection 263

M/S Amudha Aseptic Food Products, Krishnagiri vs. ITO, Ward-1, Krishnagiri

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

ITA 154/CHNY/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.154/Chny/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Mr.T.S.Lakshmi-

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263

u/s.263 of the Act, is that the assessment order framed u/s.143(3) of the Act, dated 21.12.2018, the original assessment order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue for the reason that the assessee has accounted for the machinery properly, has paid advance of Rs.31 ... excess claim of depreciation made by the assessee of Rs.15,87,180/-. Therefore, the original assessment order passed by the AO has become erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. We noted that the accounting of the advance paid Rs.31,25,445/- to M/s.Divine Agri Pvt. Ltd., Singapore

Janyuvak Kalyan Co. Op. Credit Society Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax-27, Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1002/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

direction to make a fresh assessment holding that the assessment order, dated 07.12.2019, passed under Section 143(3) of the Act was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue as the Assessing Officer had failed to make the necessary enquiry or verification. The relevant extract of the order, dated

Janata Traders, Gadag vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

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

ITA 401/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Girija, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. G. Manoj Kumar, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69A

u/s.263 and consequent proceedings are bad in law and without jurisdiction. 7. That the CIT erred in holding that order of assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. 8. That the CIT erred in giving a finding that the AO had not examined details of cash deposit ... such addition has been made in the assessment order. 3.2 In view of these facts, the assessment order was considered to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue in terms of Sec. 263 of the Act. A show cause notice was issued on 7.3.22 giving the assessee

Vipul Lalit Sheth, Mumbai vs. ACIT-Circle 27(3), Mumbai

In the result, we do not find that the assessment order passed by the learned Assessing Officer is erroneous so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue

ITA 887/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Acit Vipul Lalit Sheth R.No.401, 4Th Floor, 2/2, Kailash Niwas, Tower No.6,’ R.B. Mehta Road Vs. Ghatkopar (East), Vashi, Mumbai-400 077 Navi Mumbai 400703 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabps7946J Assessee By : Shri Ripple G Trashawala, Ar Revenue By : Shri Achal Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.10.2022

For Appellant: Shri Ripple G Trashawala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma, CIT DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263

PCIT is of the view that as the learned Assessing Officer has not verified these aspects while passing the assessment order same as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue under Section 263 of the Act. The Assessee made written submission on 9th March, 06. 2022. The claim ... Officer has examined all the details, applied his mind, did not make any adjustment to the total income therefore, the order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 07. On the reply of the assessee, the learned PCIT called for factual report from the learned Assessing