“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

Neetu Yadav, Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Gurgaon

ITA 845/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwalita No. 4095/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 4229/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Ita No. 845/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Neetu Yadav, Vs Income Tax Officer, 164-P, Sector-15, Part-1, Ward-3(1), Gurgaon, Haryana-122001 Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abfpy2785C Assessee By : Sh. Anand Kumar Pandey, Adv. & Sh. Archit Pandey, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.09.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: These Assessee’S Three Appeals In Ita Nos. 4095 & 4229/Del/2024 & Ita No. 845/Del/2025 For Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2019-20, Arise Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024- 25/1066728710(1) & 1067097100(1) & 1066774096(1) Dated 15.07.2024, 16.07.2024 & 29.07.2024 In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Respectively.

For Appellant: Sh. Anand Kumar Pandey, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

powers vested in him under section 263 of the Act, the Ld. PCIT held the impugned order of the Ld. AO as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. According to Ld. PCIT, the Ld. AO should have taken into consideration, the binding decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High ... appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds relate thereto. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of Revenue because (i) the Ld. AO has passed the order after making proper enquiries during assessment proceedings; (ii) the Ld. PCIT

Neetu Yadav, Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Gurgaon

ITA 4229/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Sh. Anand Kumar Pandey, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

Neetu Yadav, Gurgaon, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Office, Gurgaon

ITA 4095/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. Anand Kumar Pandey, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

Shri Vibhu Grover, Kotdwara vs. PCIT, Dehradun

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 110/DDN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun26 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalvibhu Grover, Pcit, M/S Grover Sales Corporation, Dehradun. Garage Road, Kotdwara, Vs. Pauri-246169 Pan:Agdpg5842R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Anil Jain, Adv. Department By Shri S.K. Chaterjee, Cit-Dr

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 263

that since the AO has made proper and sufficient enquiries with respect to the reasons recorded, therefore, the reassessment order passed is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of 4 IT No.110/DDN/2024 Shri Vibhu Grover vs. PCIT the Revenue and was passed after making all the necessary enquiries ... assessee and since no enquiries was made with respect to the transactions made with Shri Ganpati Enterprises, the reassessment order passed is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. He thus requested for the confirmation of the order passed u/s 263 of the Act. 10. Heard both the parties

Madresa Mohammadiyan and Panjataniya, Dahod Gujarat vs. CIT(E), Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1118/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Madressa Mohammadiyn & Cit(Exemption) Panjataniya, Madresa Raildings Nehru Bridge B/H. Tower Talav Road, Dahod. Ahmedabad. Pan : Brdmo 8620 D (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Ankit Chokshi, Ar Assessee By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/09/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/09/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR

Section 10Section 11Section 12A(1)(b)Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 144B(1)(xii)Section 263

only 15 percent. Invoking Explanation 2 to section 263 and clause (a) thereof, the PCIT held that the order is deemed to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue as inquiries or verification which should have been made were not made, and that the Assessing Officer ought ... learned PCIT, in para 2.1 of the revisional order, has rightly pointed out this infirmity and has held that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, since the 11 Assessing Officer had not made requisite enquiry which was called for in the facts

Amanta Healthcare Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr.CIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the order of the Ld

ITA 1088/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 43B

under Section 2(24)(x) of the Act. 2.1 Therefore, the Ld. PCIT had held that the order of the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and vide the impugned order he had set aside the assessment order of the Assessing Officer with a direction ... well. He submitted that since the Assessing Officer had failed to make those additions, the order of the Assessing Officer was certainly erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Therefore, the Ld. PCIT had rightly exercised his revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act. 6. We have

M/S. Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Ahmedabad

In the result the order of the Ld

ITA 194/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT.DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 263Section 32ASection 35ASection 40A(3)

Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) r.w. Section 144C(3) & 144B of the Income Tax on 29-05-2021 is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and none of the conditions as envisaged under Section 263 are fulfilled. 2. Ground No. 2 Issue of claim ... deduction under Section 32AC of the Act is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue: The Ld. PCIT erred in not appreciating the law, ie, difference between the "Installation" and "Put to use and further erred in merely giving direction to conduct inquiries to verify the claim

Vinay Tarachand Chawla, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 6, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3371/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Ravikant PathakFor Respondent: Mr. Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)

facts on record warranting further examination. The failure to conduct a proper inquiry into the assessee's claims renders the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 7. The submissions of the assessee with respect to claim of bad debt for interest receivable from M/s. Chinmaya Associates ... facts on record warranting further examination. The failure to conduct a proper inquiry into the assessee's claims renders the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer

Ashok Kumar Bansal, Gurgaon vs. Pr, CIT Central Delhi-1, Delhi

ITA 1821/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Mahesh Kumar, CIT, DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 263

order dated 31.05.2022 was issued by the Ld. PCIT(Central) Delhi - 1 to the assessee on 12.01.2023 holding the assessment order dated 31.05.2022 erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, contents whereof is as follows: “2. On perusal of the assessment records, it has been seen that during ... verified by the Ld. AO holding the order passed by the Ld. PCIT under Section 153C r.w.s 143(3) of the Act erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue does not and cannot arise. On the score alone the impugned revisionary order is liable to be quashed

Ashok Kumar Bansal, Gurgaon vs. Pr, CIT Central Delhi-1, Delhi

ITA 1820/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Mahesh Kumar, CIT, DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 263

Ashok Kumar Bansal, Gurgaon vs. Pr, CIT Central, Delhi-1, Delhi

ITA 1819/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Mahesh Kumar, CIT, DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 263

Amarendra Financial Pvt.Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT (Central) Knp, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2526/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: the tribunal. Before us, assessee also take additional grounds of appeal which are admitted as they are purely legal in nature and requires no verification of facts by placing reliance on the judgment of hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Ltd. reported in 229 ITR 383(SC).

Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 263Section 68

appeal was filed against the order sought to be revised challenging the same issues based on which the assessment order is held as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Amarendra Financial Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT 6. Before us, the Ld. AR of the assessee submits that assessee ... exercise the revisionary jurisdiction available u/s 263 of the Act in as much as the issues taken for holding the order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue are subject matter of appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgment

Vijay Singh Chauhan, Noida vs. ITO, Ward-2(5), Noida

The appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 2561/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhir Pareek & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishravijay Singh Chauhan, Income Tax Officer, House No.-193, Gali No.-3, Vs. Ward- 2(5), Noida, Village Chhalera, Sector-44, Uttar Pradesh, Noida, Uttar Pradesh India. India. Pan No: Aeipc4637E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Sh. Naveen Kumar, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.09.2025 Order Per Sudhir Pareek, Jm: The Aforetitled Appeal Has Been Preferred Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter, In Short, ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 17.07.2023 For Ay 2015-16, By Which Appeal Of The Assessee Was Dismissed.

For Appellant: Sh. Naveen Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 10(37)Section 143(2)Section 28Section 34

Jurisdictional High Coat/Punjab & Haryana High Court in the cases of Mahender Pal Narang (Supra) and Puneet Singh (Supra) not followed was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue as per the clause (d) of Explanation 2 to section 263 of the Act. 26. In view of the foregoing discussions ... considered view that the PCIT is fully Vijay Singh Chauhan vs. ITO justified in holding that the order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue as the assessment order is based on an incorrect appreciation of law. 27. In the light

Naman Vidyapati Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr.CIT, Central, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1008/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1008/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2021-22 Naman Vidyapati Patel The Pr.Cit (Central) बनाम/ M/S.Markettic Ahmedabad – 380 009 V/S. Mahalaxmi Compound Opp. Rustom Mills Dudheshwar Road Ahmedabad – 380 004 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Acopp 9233 C (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) ()* यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N.Divatia, Ar & Shri Samir Vora, Ar Revenue By : Shri Alpesh Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/09/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Central), Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Pcit” For Short] Dated 27/03/2025 Passed In Exercise Of His Revision Jurisdiction Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short] For Assessment Year (Ay) 2021-22. Naman Vidyapati Patel Vs. The Pr.Cit Central Asst. Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Divatia, AR &For Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

dated 15/12/2022 was without making the necessary examination/ verifications/enquiries on the abovementioned issue and, accordingly, he held that the said assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to be interests of the revenue. He set aside the impugned assessment order dated 15/12/2022 and the matter was restored to the file

The Vadgaon Janata Co Operative Credit Society Limited, Vadgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Ichalkaranji

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

ITA 1308/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1308/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Vadgaon Janata Co- Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Operative Credit Society Ichalkaranji. Limited, Main Road, Peth Vadgaon, Near Abaji Putala, Tal. Hatkanangale, Kolhapur- 416112. Pan : Aabtt2018E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri Amit Bobde Date Of Hearing : 31.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.03.2025 Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act By Ld. Pcit, Pune-1 [‘Ld. Pcit’] For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1, Pune (Hereinafter Referred To As The Pcit) Erred In Passing Order U/S 263 Holding The Assessment Order Dated 19.03.2023 Passed By The Ao, Nfac

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 263Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)

holding the assessment order dated 19.03.2023 passed by the AO, NFAC 2 allowing deduction u/s 80P as claimed by the appellant, to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The appellant submits as under, without prejudice to each other: a. The order having been passed ... appellant being entitled for the deduction; it is incorrect on the part of the PCIT to hold the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The appellant prays that the order of the PCIT be quashed. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend

Govindegowda Ramegowda, Mandya vs. Pr. CIT, Bengaluru-3, Bengaluru

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 925/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Tharun Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 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

Gowdahally Lingegowda Lakshmegowda, Mandya vs. Pr. CIT, Bengaluru-3, Bengaluru

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 924/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Tharun Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263

Kadalur Ramakrishna Mahesha, Mandya vs. Pr. CIT, Bengaluru-3, Bengaluru

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 923/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Tharun Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263

Hapag Lloyd India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mumbai - 5, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 3805/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Arun Khodpiahapag Lloyd India Private Limited Pr. Cit Room No. 515, 5Th Floor, 501, Satellite Gazebo, B-Wing, 5Th Floor, Guru Hargovindaji Marg, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Vs. Andheri (E), Chakala Mide S.O., Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 093 Pan/Gir No. Aabch 7319 B (Appellant) : (Respondent) : Shri Paras Savla, Adv. A/W Appellant By Shri Pratik Poddar, Adv. & Shri Shreyas Sardesai Respondent By : Shri Ritesh Misra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Assailing The Order Dated 11.03.2025 Passed By Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (‘Ld. Pcit’ For Short), Mumbai U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2020-21. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: Validity Of Revision Proceedings Under Section 263 Of The Act 1. On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Leamed Pcit Erred In Passing An Order Under Section 263 Of The Act Without Appreciating That The Assessment Order Dated 5 September 2022 Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer ('Ao') Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144B Of The Act Was Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue & Thus, The Order Under Section 263 Of The Act Is Without Jurisdiction & Bad-In-Law.

For Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 37(1)Section 41(1)Section 80G

September 2022 passed by the learned Assessing Officer ('AO') under section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Act was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and thus, the order under section 263 of the Act is without jurisdiction and bad-in-law. 2 Hapag ... completing the assessment, the A.O. having not verified these issues, the 3 Hapag Lloyd India Private Limited vs. Pr. CIT assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Accordingly, he issued a show cause notice to the assessee to explain why the assessment order should

Hampi Expressways Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, 1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 3537/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Arun Khodpiahampi Expressways Pvt. Ltd., Principal Commissioner Of 2Nd Floor, Eliphinstone Building, 10 Income Tax -1, Veer Nariman Road, Fort, Vs. Room No.330, 3Rd Floor, Aayakar Mumbai-400001 Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai (Appellant) : (Respondent) Pan No. Aadch 6031L

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT- DR

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263

assessee in the impugned assessment year was allowed in the assessment, learned PCIT was of the view that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Accordingly, he invoked jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act and passed the impugned order, setting aside the assessment order, with