“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

M/S. Vasavi Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, Raichur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubali

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

ITA 365/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.V.Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

issued show cause notice u/s 263 of the I.T.Act stating that the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the I.T.Act dated 26.12.2019 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The CIT(A) noticed that the assessee-society had made cash deposits with specified bank notes (SBNs) amounting ... I.T.Act is allowable. 6. The PCIT rejected the contention of the assessee and set aside the assessment order dated 26.12.2019 as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The PCIT directed the A.O. to examine the source of cash deposits and the claim of deduction

M/S. Karthik Estate, Udupi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 432/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 132Section 143Section 143(2)Section 153DSection 263

that the AO had not made any enquiry or verification on this issue and to that extent the order of the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. He therefore issued a show cause notice to the assessee in this regard and after considering the submissions ... provisions of section 115BBE of the Act and based on this premise, he concluded that the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to take note of the relevant extract of section 263 and the Explanation

Mr. Deepak Vishnu Raut- General Manager Shri Murli Manohar Nagari Sahakari Patasanth Maryadit, Mahad vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-PCIT-1, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1260/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:-

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P

order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act was pursuant to the proper enquiry and verification and therefore, the said order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. Principal Commissioner ... pleaded in the last para of the said submission made to CIT(Audit) Pune that the order of the ld. AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and requested for dropping /withdrawal of the audit objection. It is pertinent to note that this submission

Shri Manoj Lalman Awashi, Mumbai vs. Pr.Comm of Income Tax (PCIT), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1072/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 23(5)Section 263

acknowledgement given to the assessee thereon. Ultimately, the order was passed by the ld. PCIT treating the order of the ld. AO as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue by invoking revision jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act on 17/03/2022. Hence, before passing the order on 17/03/2022

Anup Enterprises, Mumbai vs. The Principal CIT-19, Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 2 & 3 raised by the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 1641/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalanup Enterprises, 41, 4Th Floor, Neelkamal, Pedder Road, Mumbai-400026 Pan: Aaafa5067D ...... Appellant Vs. The Pr.Cit-19, Room No. 228, 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Tardeo, Mumbai-400007 ..... Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Smt. Shailja Rai, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 26/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/08/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-19, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As (‘Ld. Pr.Cit) Dated 22.03.2021 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 263Section 263(1)Section 3

that the order passed by the of Income Tax Officer-19(1)(1) u/s.144 r.w.s. 147 of the Cat dated 12.12.2018 was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and that the provision of section 253 of the Act have been involved without complying with the conditions ... jurisdiction The failure on the part of the AD to conduct the necessary enquires in the circumstances of the case makes the order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue as held in the cases of Rampayari Devi Saraogi Vs. CIT 67 ITR 54 (SC) and Tara Devi Agarwal

Sampkhand Group Seva Sahakari Sangh Limited, Samphkand vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

ITA 366/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Sampkhand Group Seva Sahakari Sangh Ltd., The Principal No. 104, Sahakari Commissioner Of Sangh, Kumta Road, Income Tax, Janmane, Hubli. Vs. Samphkand – 581 315. Pan: Aanas3902K Appellant Respondent : Shri S.V. Ravishankar, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By Dr-1 Date Of Hearing : 11-08-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23-08-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 29/03/2022 U/S. 263 Passed By The Ld.Pr.Cit, Hubli Relating To Assessment Year 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax Hubli, Passed Under Section 263 Of The Act In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Natural Justice, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case.

For Respondent: Shri S.V. Ravishankar

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 801Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 8o

justified in law in invoking the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act and setting aside the order of the AO, as being "erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue", which is contrary to fact, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The learned PCIT ... justified in appreciating that the provision 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, the invoking

Baidoddi Eshappa, Raichur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubali

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 459/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Sunaina Bhatia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT

Section 263

ledger, purchase ledger etc and thus the order of assessment passed after due examination of the same could not be considered to be "erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue" under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 5. The learned Pr.CIT ought ... Pr.CIT set aside the order passed by the AO u/s 143(3) holding that the assessment order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and directed to make a fresh assessment in accordance with law. 4. Aggrieved from the order of ld.Pr.CIT

Terrier Security Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 347/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80J

erred in not providing any opportunity of being heard in relation to points on which the assessment order is considered to be erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 2.3 The learned PCIT has erred in concluding that the assessment order passed by the AO is erroneous ... examine the allowability of the claim of assessee u/s. 80JJAA and to that extent the order of the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The relevant extract of the order of the PCIT for AY 2017-18 is as under:- “5. I have considered

Terrier Security Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 346/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80J

M/S Dtps Employees Co-Op Credit Limited Dahanu, Palghar vs. Pr Commissioner of Income Ta -1, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1519/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:-

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

appreciating that the provisions of the said section could be invoked only if the order sought to be revised was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. 2. The learned Pr. Commissioner of income tax erred in assuming powers and passing order u/s 263 only on the basis of opinion ... pleaded in the last para of the said submission made to CIT(Audit) Pune that the order of the ld. AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and requested for dropping 5 M/s.DTPS Employees Co-Op Credit Ltd., /withdrawal of the audit objection

Asha Devi, Bangalore vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore-2, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 371/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Deva Rathna Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT)

Section 143(3)Section 263

assessee has not given satisfactory explanation regarding source of cash deposits. To this extent, the PCIT considered the order of assessment to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. PCIT issued a show cause notice on 9.2.2022 giving the assessee an opportunity for filing her submissions ... cash deposits should have been verified by the AO, which the AO failed to do so and the order therefore is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. 8. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The case of the assessee was selected

Reliance Retail Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 8(1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1245/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

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

revision order. Without doing any exercise and without bringing on record as to how the order of the ld. AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, the ld. PCIT directly proceeds to invoke revision jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act in the instant case. Actually we find

Jaladurga V S S Sangha Tellaru, Karkala vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji, Goa

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

ITA 341/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri S.V Ravishankar, Advocate by RevenueFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT (DR) by

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

justified in law in invoking the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act and setting aside the order of the AO, as being "erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue",which is contrary to fact, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The learned ... learned CIT failed to appreciate that the provision 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

Abhushan Jewellerys (India ) Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -4, Mumbai

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

ITA 793/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

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

view that the assessing officer has not properly examined this issue and the same has resulted in making the impugned assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. Accordingly, he initiated revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act. 2 Abhushan Jewellery (India) Pvt. Ltd. 3. The assessee objected ... 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.” 7 Abhushan Jewellery (India

Asian Star Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT (Central), Mumbai-1, Mumbai

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

ITA 710/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

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.” 6 Asian Star Company ... orders which are already concluded. 8. We shall now examine the facts prevailing in this case. The first issue considered to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue by Ld PCIT relates to the deduction allowed u/s 80IA of the Act. The case of Ld PCIT is that

Rediffusion Brand Solutions P Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -8, Mumbai

ITA 920/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Vikas Awasthy: A.Y : 2015-16 Rediffusion Brand Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-8, Mumbai. (Respondent) 1801, A Wing, Lotus Corporate Park, Goregaon (E), Mumbai 400 063. Pan : Aaacr5303G (Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Kirtane & Mehul Jain

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

assessee failed to reconcile the difference. The Assessing Officer has failed to conduct inquiries, hence, the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 4. We have heard the submissions made by rival sides and have examined the orders of the authorities below. A perusal ... error in the assessment order. The twin conditions for exercising power under Section 263 of the Act, i.e. assessment order should be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, are not satisfied in the present case. It is a well settled law that satisfaction of aforesaid twin conditions

Manipal Cigna Health Insurance Company Ltd, Mumabi vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1045/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 92C

PCIT had not bothered to even look into these submissions and proceeded to treat the order of the ld. AO as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue on the ground that no enquiries were carried out by the ld. AO. We have no hesitation to hold that

Manipal Cigna Health Insurance Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1044/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 92C

The Mysore Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-27, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 730/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhthe Mysore Co-Op Vs. Pr.Cit-27, Housing Society Ltd, Room No -401, 4 Th Gateno2, Mysore Colony, Floor, Tower-6, Vashi Near Rcf Factory, Railway Station Anik,Off Majul Road, Commercial Complex, Chembur, Vashi,Navi Mumbai- Mumbai-400074 400073. Pan/Gir No. : Aacft7837N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.M.Subramanian.& Ms.Varsha Nanwani.Ar Respondent By : Mr. Ajay. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 10.08.2022 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 (Pr.Cit), Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act Dated 17.03.2021. Mysore Co-Op Housing Society Ltd. Mumbai. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assesse Is A Cooperative Housing Society & Derives Income House Property & Interest From Bank & Provides Credit Facilities To Its Members. The Assessee Has Filed The Return Of Income For The A.Y 2015-16 Electronically On 26.10.2015 Disclosing A Total Income Of Rs.43,08,320/- After Claiming Deduction U/S 80P(2)(D) Of The Act Of Rs.85,80,391/-In Respect Of Interest Income Received On Deposits With Co-Op Banks. The Return Of Income Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act. Subsequently The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Through Cass For Verification Of (I)Income From Heads Of Income Other Than Business/Profession Mismatch(Ii)Sales Turnover Mismatch & (Iii) Deduction Under Chapter Vi-A. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) Issued Notice U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Along With The Questionnaire. In Compliance, The Ld.Ar Of The Assessee Appeared From Time To Time, Produced The Books Of Accounts & Submitted The Relevant Details & Documents & The Case Was Discussed.

For Appellant: Mr.M.Subramanian.&For Respondent: Mr. Ajay. CIT DR

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

eligible for claim. The Pr.CIT is of the opinion that the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and issued notice u/s 263 of the Act dated 04.03.2021. In compliance to notice,the assessee has filed the submissions ... Act.Whereas the Pr.CIT was not satisfied with the explanations and observed that the order passed U/sec143(3) of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and has set aside the assessment and issued directions to the A.O to pass a fresh assessment order. Aggrieved

Juniper Networks International B.V., Mumbai vs. CIT (International Taxation)-3, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

ITA 982/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 982/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2014-15) Juniper Networks International B.V, Boeing Avenue 240, 1119Pz Schipol-Rijk, Amsterdam,0 Netherlands Pan: Aadcj-0974-G ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (It), Mumbai -3, Room No.1601, 16Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 .....""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr. Advocate With Ms. Prachi Mehta &Shri Sandeep Bhalla ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Surabhi Sharma & Shri Milind Chavan सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 13/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08/2022 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Prachi Mehta &Shri Sandeep BhallaFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma &

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

position rejected the submissions made by assessee and invoked Explanation – 2 to section 263 of the Act. The CIT held the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue as the Assessing Officer has failed to make enquiries or verification in respect of the claim made ... verification of the claim made in the revised return of the assessee. Hence, the order passed by the 7 Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. A perusal of the documents on record reveal that the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings had issued