← 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

Amit Sharma, Gurugram vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Gurugram

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3231/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Sh. Yogesh Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 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 3 Amit Sharma to Ld. PCIT, the Ld. AO should have taken into consideration, the binding decision ... 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

Vitthaldas Nathubhai Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 823/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2020-21 Vitthaldas Nathubhai Shah Vs. The Pr.Cit-3 1St Floor, Tax Planning House Vejalpur Above Usmanpura Underbridge Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad 380013. Pan : Acwps 4622 C (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Mukesh Patel, Ar Assessee By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23/09/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/09/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80G

erred in law in holding that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) on 25/08/2022, u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue on the ground that the AO was bound to disallow the deduction of Rs. 15,00,000/- u/s.80GGC ... linking the assessee’s donation, thus proceeding on “thin air,” which cannot satisfy the statutory requirement of showing the order to be both erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. Placing reliance on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. v. PCIT [2025] 176 taxmann.com

Dhanesh Badarmal Jain, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr.CIT, Central, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1211/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2021-22

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

which was debited to the account of the assessee. The Ld. PCIT held that the order of the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and accordingly the impugned order under Section 263 of the Act was passed by him, directing the Assessing Officer to verify ... PCIT erred on facts and in law in holding the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. 3. The Ld. PCIT erred on facts and in law in holding that issue with reference to interest paid on loans taxed

Income Tax Officer Ward-2 Pandharpur, Pandharpur vs. Mohol Nagari Sahakari Patpuravatha Sanstha Maryadit, Mohol

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 718/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69ASection 80P(2)

calculated by him in the assessment order. In these facts of the case, we agree with the Pr.CIT that the Assessment Order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue qua AO’s mistake of not adding the amount which he himself held to be non-eligible. However, this

Income Tax Officer Ward-2 Pandharpur, Pandharpur vs. Mohol Nagari Sahakari Patpuravatha Sastha Maryadit, Mohol

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 717/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69ASection 80P(2)

calculated by him in the assessment order. In these facts of the case, we agree with the Pr.CIT that the Assessment Order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue qua AO’s mistake of not adding the amount which he himself held to be non-eligible. However, this

Income Tax Officer Ward-2 Pandharpur, Pandharpur vs. Mohol Nagari Sahakari Patpurvagha Sanstha Maryadit, Mohol

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 695/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69ASection 80P(2)

calculated by him in the assessment order. In these facts of the case, we agree with the Pr.CIT that the Assessment Order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue qua AO’s mistake of not adding the amount which he himself held to be non-eligible. However, this

Mohol Nagari Sahakari Patpurvatha Sanstha Maryadit, Solapur vs. ITO Ward 2, Pandharpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1332/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69ASection 80P(2)

calculated by him in the assessment order. In these facts of the case, we agree with the Pr.CIT that the Assessment Order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue qua AO’s mistake of not adding the amount which he himself held to be non-eligible. However, this

Mohol Nagari Sahakari Patpurvatha Sanstha Maryadit, Solapur vs. ITO Ward 2, Pandharpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1331/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69ASection 80P(2)

calculated by him in the assessment order. In these facts of the case, we agree with the Pr.CIT that the Assessment Order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue qua AO’s mistake of not adding the amount which he himself held to be non-eligible. However, this

Income Tax Officer Ward-2 Pandharpur, Pandharpur vs. Mohol Nagari Sahakari Patpurvatha Sanstha Maryadit, Mohol

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1146/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69ASection 80P(2)

calculated by him in the assessment order. In these facts of the case, we agree with the Pr.CIT that the Assessment Order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue qua AO’s mistake of not adding the amount which he himself held to be non-eligible. However, this

ITO, Ward- 44(2), New Delhi vs. Threepence Craft, New Delhi

ITA 5995/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 195(2)Section 263

case, the AO having taken one of the possible views the Ld. CIT was not justified in holding the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT has erred both on facts ... despite the fact that even after thorough examination, no specific findings have been given on the issue of how the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 6. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT has erred both on facts

Threepence Craft, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 44(2), New Delhi

ITA 5410/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 195(2)Section 263Section 40

case, the AO having taken one of the possible views the Ld. CIT was not justified in holding the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT has erred both on facts ... despite the fact that even after thorough examination, no specific findings have been given on the issue of how the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 6. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT has erred both on facts

Threepence Craft, New Delhi vs. CIT- IX, New Delhi

ITA 2234/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 195(2)Section 263

case, the AO having taken one of the possible views the Ld. CIT was not justified in holding the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT has erred both on facts ... despite the fact that even after thorough examination, no specific findings have been given on the issue of how the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 6. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT has erred both on facts

Shree Laxmi Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Jalgaon vs. ITO, Ward 1(4), Jalgaon

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

ITA 1122/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Vinay KawadiaFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

also finding of ld.PCIT holding that the assessment order by Assessing Officer dated 05.09.2022 for A.Y. 2020-21 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue with regard to two issues firstly allowing the claim of deduction u/s.80P(2)(d) at Rs.45,75,176/- earned by the assessee ... observed that provisioning of expenses at Rs.13,70,000/- have also been allowed during the assessment proceedings thus making the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Ld. PCIT issued show cause notice u/s.263 of the Act on 30.01.2025 calling for the submission of details

Dr. Pratap Pandhiranath Patil, Pune vs. PCIT - 2, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

ITA 1026/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri A.V.Iyer and Shri Siddhant G. BiswasFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

alleged error resulted in a loss to revenue. Mere disagreement with the AO's view does not render the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. Without demonstrating an actual revenue loss or a lack of inquiry leading to such a loss, the invocation of Section 263 is unjustified ... PCIT failed to appreciate that when one possible view has been taken by AO the same cannot be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue merely because the PCIT holds a different opinion. Accordingly, revisionary order U/s 263 of the Income Tax Act based on mere

Nirmalkumar Agrawal HUF, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Bhandara

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 242/NAG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Loya a/wFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 263

learned PCIT erred in holding that assessment order passed by the AO u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act, 1961 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and therefore the action of the Pr. CIT, Nagpur-2 is illegal and liable to be quashed. (2) That ... basis of reappraisal of evidence and holding the assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. On the facts and circumstances of the case, once the AO has taken a view while framing assessment order, revisionary powers cannot

Gajanand Financial Consultancy Private Limited, Nagpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Nagpur, Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 126/NAG/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Sept 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

assessee has resulted in under assessment of income by Rs.4,48,00,000/-. As such the order passed by the assessing officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Further the details of these non current investments is also not on record. 5. In view of the above ... provisions of section 263 to review the under passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 dated 28.03.2022 stating that the impugned order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. We respectfully object to the notice issued u/s. 263 since the order of the Ld. AO is not erroneous

Rohilkhand Educational Charitable Trust, Bareilly vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Bareilly

In the result, both appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 181/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.181 & 182/Lkw/2024 A.Ys.2017-18 & 2018-19 Rohilkhand Educational Vs. Dcit, Charitable Trust, Bareilly Central Circle, Bareilly Pan: Aaatr6902J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assesseeby: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. S.H. Usmani, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.09.2025 O R D E R Per Bench: [ These Two Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Lucknow Dated 19.03.2024 & 22.03.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For The A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19, Dismissing The Appeals Of The Assessee Against Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “(1).That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Not Considering The Fact That In The Alleged Assessment Order, The Columns Of Name Of Assessee, Pan, Asst Year, Date Of Assessment & Section Under Which Passed, Are Blank. (2)That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Treating The Demand As Valid Which Was Not Computed On The Basis Of Orderthat May Not Be Termed To Be An Order Under Section 143(3). (3) That A Demand Of Tax As Computed In The Computation Sheet Is Without Jurisdiction Void-Ab-Inito & Is Liable To Be Annulled. (4) That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 736591857/-Comprising  Corpus Donation Aggregating To Rs 7,68,95,000/-, A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.H. Usmani, CIT DR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80GSection 80G(5)

section 11(2) contemplated only specific or concrete purposes and since those were not specified by the assessee, the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Accordingly, the assessment was set aside. On appeal to the Tribunal, the Tribunal held, that on an examination

Sharada Electors Private Limited, Pune vs. PCIT, Pune-3, Pune

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

ITA 1432/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 263

examine. This issue was not examined by the FAO properly before accepting the contention of the assessee, which renders assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. d) Disallowance of Rs.19,45,124 u/s 40(a) (ia) for non deduction of Tax:- In the draft assessment order ... r.w.r 31ACB of the IT Act/Rules. This issue was not examined by the FAO properly, thereby rendering the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. e) Addition of Rs.64,93,534/- on account of debit/credit balances written off:- On this issue, the assessee has submitted that the recognition

Birla Carbon India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai - 5, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 3768/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyabirla Carbon India Private Limited The Principal Commissioner Of Ground Floor, Aditya Birla Centre, Income Tax Room No. 515, 5Th Floor, Aaykar S. K. Ahire Marg, Worli, Vs. Mumbai-400 030 Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aascs 9916 L (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Madhur Agarwal Respondent By : Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh Date Of Hearing : 16.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.09.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: In The Present Appeal, The Assessee Has Called Into Question The Validity Of The Order Dated 25.03.2025, Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) By Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (‘Ld.Pcit’ For Short), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19. 2. Thought Multiple Grounds Have Been Raised In The Memorandum Of Appeal, However, The Assessee Has Raised A Pertinent Preliminary Issue, Challenging The Competence & Jurisdiction Of Ld. Pcit To Invoke Powers U/S. 263 Of The Act To Revise An Assessment Order Passed U/S. 144C(13) Of The Act, In Pursuance To The Directions Of Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (Ld. Drp).

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 263Section 92C

failed to examine certain issues resulting in loss of revenue. Thus, he was of the view that the final assessment order passed is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, hence, is required to be revised u/s. 263 of the Act. Accordingly, he issued a show cause notice ... However, ld. PCIT did not find merit in the objections of the assessee. Ultimately, he held that the final assessment order passed, being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, has to be revised. Therefore, he set aside the assessment order with a direction to modify the assessment

Jayantilal Rajmal Seth, Mumbai vs. DCIT-CC-4(3), Mumbai

ITA 3260/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jayantilal Rajmal Seth, Dcit-Cc-4(3), A-3, Saibaba Shopping Centre, Bkc, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai Central, Vs. Mumbai-400008. Pan No. Agepj 0499 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Jayant Bhat
Section 139(5)Section 148Section 263

order of the Ld. PCIT treating the ground and hence the order of the Ld. PCIT treating the order as erroneous order as erroneous and prejudicial to interest itself fails and prejudicial to interest itself fails and as such the order passed U/S 263 being ... clause (a) of Explanation 2 to section 263 of the Act, wherein an Jayantilal Rajmal Seth 14 assessment order is deemed to be erroneous and prejudicial to the assessment order is deemed to be erroneous and prejudicial to the assessment order is deemed to be erroneous and prejudicial