← 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

C.B. Mubarka Charitable Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 638/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhc.B. Murarka Charitable Vs. Cit(Exemption) Trust, B-310, Virwani 617, 6Th Floor, Piramal Industrial Estate, Chamber, Lal Baug, Parel Western Express Mumbai - 400012 Highway, Goregaon East, Mumbai – 400063 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaatc0036C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sanjay C. ShahFor Respondent: Sandeep Rai
Section 143(3)Section 263

Income Tax Act treating the order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Act as erroneous and prejudicial to the Interest of the Revenue within the meaning of Section 263 of the Act and thereby directing Assessing Officer to frame Assessment Order de novo. ITA No.638/Mum/2021 ... quashed. 2. Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax erred in holding that Order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the Interest of the Revenue and thereby invoking powers u/s 263 of the Act, mainly on account of alleged non-verification of expenditure incurred

The Cricket Club of India Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the

ITA 2799/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shivani ChaurasiaFor Respondent: Shri H.N. Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 263

under:- “11.1 We hold that merely calling for information to see whether there is “potential reason” to hold that assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, constitutes a roving or fishing inquiry. Reliance in this regard in placed on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court

Matrabhav Trust, Mumbai vs. Pr Commissioner of Income Tax-17, Mumbai

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

ITA 872/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalematrabhav Trust Vs. Pr. Cit – 17 5Th Floor, Sunteck Room No. 120, 1St Floor, Centre, 37 40 Kautilya Bhavan G Subhash Road, Vile Block, Bandra Kurla Parle (East) Complex, Bandra(E), Mumbai-400057. Mumbai-400051. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadtm5199F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Rakesh Joshi.Ar Respondent By : Shri .A.B. Koli.Dr Date Of Hearing 21.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 27.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax 17, Mumbai U/S 263 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri.Rakesh Joshi.ARFor Respondent: Shri .A.B. Koli.DR
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

erred in considering the order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Learned Assessing officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. On the fact and circumstances of the case as well ... opinion that the A.O. has overlooked the factual aspects and not applied the mind.Hence the order passed by the A.O. is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and issued notice U/sec 263 of the Act read as under: 3. On perusal of the assessment records

M/S. Haris Marine Products, Mangaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 383/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)
Section 143Section 153DSection 263

assessment order without making enquiries which should have been made on this and therefore the order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s 153C is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The PCIT issued a show cause notice to the assessee in this regard. The assessee filed a reply stating ... submitted that in the instant case the order passed by the AO u/s. 143 [3] r.w.s. 153C of the Act is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Malabar Industrial

M/S. Coretech Ventures (Bangalore) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-2, Bangalore

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

ITA 746/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Coretech Ventures (Bangalore) Pvt. Ltd., The Principal Divyasree Chambers’ Commissioner Of Wing-A, O Shaugnessy Income Tax, Road, Bengaluru – 2, Langford Town, Vs. Bengaluru. Bangalore – 560 025. Pan: Aafcc2775E Appellant Respondent : Shri V. Chandrashekar, Assessee By Advocate : Shri V.S. Chakrapani, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30/03/2021 Passed By Ld.Pcit, Bangalore -2 U/S. 263 Of The Act For A.Y. 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of Revision Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru -2, Bengaluru, Under Section 263 Of The Act Dated 30/03/2021, In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case.

For Respondent: Shri V. Chandrashekar
Section 143Section 263Section 80Section 801A

allowed in excess. The Ld.PCIT, therefore, was of the view that the assessment order passed is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. 2.4 A notice u/s. 263 of the Act was, issued to the assessee on 18/03/2021 to appear before the Principal Commissioner of Income ... considered for the purpose of computing deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act. The Ld.Pr.CIT thus held the assessment order passed to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue by observing as under: “7.11. The assessing officer while concluding assessment order failed to appreciate these facts on record

Kabir Tripat Oberoi, Mumbai vs. The Pr. CIT -20, Mumbai

In the result, assessee's appeal stands allowed

ITA 685/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2016-17
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 49(1)

Based on this valuation report, the ld. PCIT seeks to revise the assessment order framed by the ld. AO by treating it as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue on the ground that the sale consideration should have been considered at Rs.13.99 Crores as against Rs.3.5 Crores ... Nos.301 & 504), the ld. PCIT sought to invoke revision jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act by treating the order of the ld. AO as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue on the ground that rental income on the said flats ought to have been brought

Kapil Tripat Oberoi, Mumbai vs. The Pr. CIT -20, Mumbai

In the result, assessee's appeal stands allowed

ITA 684/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2016-17
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 49(1)

Based on this valuation report, the ld. PCIT seeks to revise the assessment order framed by the ld. AO by treating it as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue on the ground that the sale consideration should have been considered at Rs.13.99 Crores as against Rs.3.5 Crores ... Nos.301 & 504), the ld. PCIT sought to invoke revision jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act by treating the order of the ld. AO as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue on the ground that rental income on the said flats ought to have been brought

Sadhu Salian, Udupi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 457/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)
Section 143Section 153DSection 263

proposing to revise the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act stating that the said order of assessment is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The assessee responded to the said show cause notice by filing detailed submissions reiterating the submissions made before ... assessee regarding additional income as income from business without making verification during the assessment proceedings. He therefore held that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue according to the provisions of clause (a) of Explanation 2 to section 263 and set aside the assessment

Om Sai Co-Operative Credit Souharda Sahakari Niyamit, Gadag vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 454/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George CIT(OSD)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P

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 PCIT ... justified in appreciating 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, the invoking

Arjunsa Megharajasa Kathwate, Gadag vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 386/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

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 PCIT ... justified in appreciating 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, the invoking

Privilege Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 14, Mumbai

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 3317/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax– M/S Privilege Industries Ltd. 14 3Rd Floor, Dheeraj Arma, Anant Room No. 415, Vs. Kanekar Marg, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecs6532N

For Appellant: Mr. Nimesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Sanjay V. Deshmukh, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 56(2)(viib)

Income Tax-14(2)(2), Mumbai [ the Ld AO ] dated 19th December, 2016 determining the total loss of ₹30,25,58,061/- is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue as Assessing Officer has failed to determine the correct fair market value of shares issued and whether ... considered the submission of the assessee and thereafter, vide paragraph no. 4 held that the order passed by the learned Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue as the learned Assessing Officer has not at all applied his mind to the fair market value

Plus Bksp Toll Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT 15 (2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7341/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Kavitha Rajagopal () - A.Y. 2012-13 - A.Y. 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32(1)(ii)

Mumbai and by way of passing an order under section 263 dated 07/11/2016, held the assessment completed under section 143(3) as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue with regard to the issue relating to depreciation at Rs.45,20,11,030/- which included depreciation of Rs.44

Plus Bksp Toll Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT 15 (2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7340/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Kavitha Rajagopal () - A.Y. 2012-13 - A.Y. 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32(1)(ii)

Mumbai and by way of passing an order under section 263 dated 07/11/2016, held the assessment completed under section 143(3) as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue with regard to the issue relating to depreciation at Rs.45,20,11,030/- which included depreciation of Rs.44

Giraffe Developers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 9, Mumbai

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

ITA 2663/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalegiraffe Developers Pvt Vs. Pr. Cit – 9, Ltd Room No. 214, 2Nd 111, G Wing, Akruti Floor, Aayakar Commercial Complex, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Next To Akruti Centre Churchgate, Point, Central Road, Mumbai-400020. Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Pan/Gir No. : Aaccn2778D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Madhur Agrawal & Shri.Fenil Bhatt.Ar Respondent By : Shri.S.Anbuselvam.Dr Date Of Hearing 13.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri.Madhur Agrawal &For Respondent: Shri.S.Anbuselvam.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271ASection 271BSection 40Section 40A(2)Section 92D

certain primary facts/claims and considered the assessment order M/s Giraffe Developers Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. 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 30.01.2019 read as under: 2. On perusal of Financial Statements ... interest income. In view of this, it appears that the assessment order u/s 143(3) passed by the AO on 30.12.2016 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue within the meaning of section 263 of the Income Tax 1961. 3. In the revised computation of total income

Vanishree Holabsu Shettar, Guledgudd vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 270/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Srinivas T. Bidari, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 263

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

Sri Chamundeswari Sugars Limited, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore-1, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 201/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Pooja Maru, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)
Section 11Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 96

resultant tax. Thus the PCIT stated that the order passed by the AO u/s. 143(3) of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue as the AO has not verified the details of property sold and the capital gains arising. The PCIT issued a show

M/S. Samprasiddhi Infratech, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore-1, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 129/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

erred in law and on facts in invoking provisions of section 263 of the Act even though the assessment order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. M/s. Samprasiddhi Infratech, Bangalore Page 2 of 24 3. That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax erred ... allowable under Income-tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act allowing the above deduction is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. 2.3 In response to the above notice, the assessee filed submissions on 10.1.2022 stating that an enquiry was made

M/S. Karnataka State Seed & Organic Certification Agency, Bengaluru vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 518/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sri.Mallah Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Srinivas T.Bidari, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 263

Therefore, the assessment order dated 28.12.2018 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act for A.Y. 2016-17 being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue is required to be revised. Accordingly, the JAO is directed to revise the assessment order for A.Y. 2016-17 as per the above observations

M/S. Karnataka State Seed & Organic Certification Agency, Bengaluru vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 517/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Sri.Mallah Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Srinivas T.Bidari, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 263

Therefore, the assessment order dated 28.12.2018 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act for A.Y. 2016-17 being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue is required to be revised. Accordingly, the JAO is directed to revise the assessment order for A.Y. 2016-17 as per the above observations

Gujarat Research Society, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

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

ITA 599/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalegujarat Research Society Vs. Cit(Exemption) Dr. Madhuri Shah Room No. 601, 6Th Campus, Ram Krishna Floor, Cumballa Hill, Mission Marg, Mtnl Bldg, Mumbai- 400052. Peddar Road, Mumbai -400026. Pan/Gir No. : Aaatg2519A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Jayesh Dadia.Ar Respondent By : Shri.S.Ambuselvam.Dr Date Of Hearing 13.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai Passed U/Sec263 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri.Jayesh Dadia.ARFor Respondent: Shri.S.Ambuselvam.DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

case in invoking Provision of Section 263 of the Income Tax Act by treating the assessment order made by the Assessing Officer as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The action is unjustified and unwarranted as the Assessing Officer's order is not erroneous. 3. Without prejudice ... opinion that the Gujarat Research Society, Mumbai. 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 30.12.2021 is read as under: 2. On verification and careful examination of the assessment records