← 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

Munish Kumar Legal Heir Late Sh Gurdeep Singh, Vill Manakpur, Yamunanagar vs. ITO, Ward 5, Yamunanagar

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 754/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

jurisdiction. Once the Assessing Officer has taken a possible and legally sustainable view after due enquiry, the assessment order cannot be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue merely because the Principal Commissioner holds a different opinion. Section 263 does not permit substitution of the Commissioner ... basis of “reason to believe”, the revisional jurisdiction under section 263 is attracted where the order passed by the Assessing Officer is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Merely because the reassessment was conducted pursuant to approval of the PCIT does not render the reassessment order

Madhu Grewal, Chandigarh vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh-1, Chandigarh

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 603/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: the Tribunal as pointed out by the Registry. Considering that the issue involved is purely legal in nature, and respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)], which emphasizes that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations, we condone the delay in filing these appeals.3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 167/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case f

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

jurisdiction. Once the Assessing Officer has taken a possible and legally sustainable view after due enquiry, the assessment order cannot be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue merely because the Principal Commissioner holds a different opinion. Section 263 does not permit substitution of the Commissioner ... basis of “reason to believe”, the revisional jurisdiction under section 263 is attracted where the order passed by the Assessing Officer is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Merely because the reassessment was conducted pursuant to approval of the PCIT does not render the reassessment order

Parveen Kumar, 229, Village Manakpur-II, Tehsil Jagadhri, Haryana vs. Prabhjot Kaur, PCIT Panchkula, Chandigarh

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 576/CHANDI/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: the Tribunal as pointed out by the Registry. Considering that the issue involved is purely legal in nature, and respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)], which emphasizes that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations, we condone the delay in filing these appeals.3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 167/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case f

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

jurisdiction. Once the Assessing Officer has taken a possible and legally sustainable view after due enquiry, the assessment order cannot be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue merely because the Principal Commissioner holds a different opinion. Section 263 does not permit substitution of the Commissioner ... basis of “reason to believe”, the revisional jurisdiction under section 263 is attracted where the order passed by the Assessing Officer is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Merely because the reassessment was conducted pursuant to approval of the PCIT does not render the reassessment order

Maninder Jeet Singh V.P.O. Udhamgarh, Jagadhri, Haryana vs. Prabhjot Kaur, PCIT, Panchkula

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 575/CHANDI/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019
For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

jurisdiction. Once the Assessing Officer has taken a possible and legally sustainable view after due enquiry, the assessment order cannot be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue merely because the Principal Commissioner holds a different opinion. Section 263 does not permit substitution of the Commissioner ... basis of “reason to believe”, the revisional jurisdiction under section 263 is attracted where the order passed by the Assessing Officer is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Merely because the reassessment was conducted pursuant to approval of the PCIT does not render the reassessment order

Ram Niwas, Fatehabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Office, Sirsa Road, Industrial Area, Fatehabad

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 498/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

jurisdiction. Once the Assessing Officer has taken a possible and legally sustainable view after due enquiry, the assessment order cannot be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue merely because the Principal Commissioner holds a different opinion. Section 263 does not permit substitution of the Commissioner ... basis of “reason to believe”, the revisional jurisdiction under section 263 is attracted where the order passed by the Assessing Officer is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Merely because the reassessment was conducted pursuant to approval of the PCIT does not render the reassessment order

Rakesh Kumar, Jagadhri vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 456/CHANDI/2024[2015-16 ]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

jurisdiction. Once the Assessing Officer has taken a possible and legally sustainable view after due enquiry, the assessment order cannot be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue merely because the Principal Commissioner holds a different opinion. Section 263 does not permit substitution of the Commissioner ... basis of “reason to believe”, the revisional jurisdiction under section 263 is attracted where the order passed by the Assessing Officer is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Merely because the reassessment was conducted pursuant to approval of the PCIT does not render the reassessment order

Ashok Kumar Thakral, Jagadhri vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 455/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: the Tribunal as pointed out by the Registry. Considering that the issue involved is purely legal in nature, and respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)], which emphasizes that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations, we condone the delay in filing these appeals.3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 167/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case f

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

jurisdiction. Once the Assessing Officer has taken a possible and legally sustainable view after due enquiry, the assessment order cannot be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue merely because the Principal Commissioner holds a different opinion. Section 263 does not permit substitution of the Commissioner ... basis of “reason to believe”, the revisional jurisdiction under section 263 is attracted where the order passed by the Assessing Officer is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Merely because the reassessment was conducted pursuant to approval of the PCIT does not render the reassessment order

Kartar Singh, Fatehabad vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 335/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

jurisdiction. Once the Assessing Officer has taken a possible and legally sustainable view after due enquiry, the assessment order cannot be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue merely because the Principal Commissioner holds a different opinion. Section 263 does not permit substitution of the Commissioner ... basis of “reason to believe”, the revisional jurisdiction under section 263 is attracted where the order passed by the Assessing Officer is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Merely because the reassessment was conducted pursuant to approval of the PCIT does not render the reassessment order

Sh. Ram Lal, Fatehabad vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 332/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

jurisdiction. Once the Assessing Officer has taken a possible and legally sustainable view after due enquiry, the assessment order cannot be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue merely because the Principal Commissioner holds a different opinion. Section 263 does not permit substitution of the Commissioner ... basis of “reason to believe”, the revisional jurisdiction under section 263 is attracted where the order passed by the Assessing Officer is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Merely because the reassessment was conducted pursuant to approval of the PCIT does not render the reassessment order

Bimla Devi, Jagadhri vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 328/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

jurisdiction. Once the Assessing Officer has taken a possible and legally sustainable view after due enquiry, the assessment order cannot be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue merely because the Principal Commissioner holds a different opinion. Section 263 does not permit substitution of the Commissioner ... basis of “reason to believe”, the revisional jurisdiction under section 263 is attracted where the order passed by the Assessing Officer is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Merely because the reassessment was conducted pursuant to approval of the PCIT does not render the reassessment order

Paramjit Singh, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 327/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

jurisdiction. Once the Assessing Officer has taken a possible and legally sustainable view after due enquiry, the assessment order cannot be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue merely because the Principal Commissioner holds a different opinion. Section 263 does not permit substitution of the Commissioner ... basis of “reason to believe”, the revisional jurisdiction under section 263 is attracted where the order passed by the Assessing Officer is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Merely because the reassessment was conducted pursuant to approval of the PCIT does not render the reassessment order

Inder Kaur, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 326/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

jurisdiction. Once the Assessing Officer has taken a possible and legally sustainable view after due enquiry, the assessment order cannot be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue merely because the Principal Commissioner holds a different opinion. Section 263 does not permit substitution of the Commissioner ... basis of “reason to believe”, the revisional jurisdiction under section 263 is attracted where the order passed by the Assessing Officer is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Merely because the reassessment was conducted pursuant to approval of the PCIT does not render the reassessment order

Sh. Amarjeet Singh, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 325/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

jurisdiction. Once the Assessing Officer has taken a possible and legally sustainable view after due enquiry, the assessment order cannot be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue merely because the Principal Commissioner holds a different opinion. Section 263 does not permit substitution of the Commissioner ... basis of “reason to believe”, the revisional jurisdiction under section 263 is attracted where the order passed by the Assessing Officer is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Merely because the reassessment was conducted pursuant to approval of the PCIT does not render the reassessment order

Sh. Gurdeep Singh Mahal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 233/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

jurisdiction. Once the Assessing Officer has taken a possible and legally sustainable view after due enquiry, the assessment order cannot be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue merely because the Principal Commissioner holds a different opinion. Section 263 does not permit substitution of the Commissioner ... basis of “reason to believe”, the revisional jurisdiction under section 263 is attracted where the order passed by the Assessing Officer is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Merely because the reassessment was conducted pursuant to approval of the PCIT does not render the reassessment order

Sh. Devender Kumar, Yamuna Nagar vs. ITO, Ward -1, Yamuna Nagar

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 192/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

jurisdiction. Once the Assessing Officer has taken a possible and legally sustainable view after due enquiry, the assessment order cannot be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue merely because the Principal Commissioner holds a different opinion. Section 263 does not permit substitution of the Commissioner ... basis of “reason to believe”, the revisional jurisdiction under section 263 is attracted where the order passed by the Assessing Officer is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Merely because the reassessment was conducted pursuant to approval of the PCIT does not render the reassessment order

Sh. Baljinder Singh, Chandigarh vs. Pr.CIT, Chandigarh -1, Chandigarh

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 167/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

jurisdiction. Once the Assessing Officer has taken a possible and legally sustainable view after due enquiry, the assessment order cannot be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue merely because the Principal Commissioner holds a different opinion. Section 263 does not permit substitution of the Commissioner ... basis of “reason to believe”, the revisional jurisdiction under section 263 is attracted where the order passed by the Assessing Officer is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Merely because the reassessment was conducted pursuant to approval of the PCIT does not render the reassessment order

M/S. Hyundai Motor India Ltd., Kanchipuram vs. PCIT-4, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 434/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Sriram Seshadri, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T
Section 143(3)Section 254Section 263Section 43(1)

order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s.143(3) read with section 254 of the Act dated 20.02.2024 was held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 2. The brief facts emanating from the records are that the assessee, Hyundai Motor India Limited (“HMIL ... provisions of Explanation 10 to Section 43(1) of the Act. The Ld.PCIT, thereby concluded that the order giving effect is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and set aside the order giving effect passed by the AO passing an order u/s.263 of the Act dated

New Delhi U.P Road Carriers Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2571/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Sh.Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2022-23 New Delhi Up Road Vs. Pr. Cit-4, New Delhi Carriers Private Limited, 148/59, Jal Lakshmi Cghs Ltd., Ip Extension, Patparganj, New Delhi- 110092 [Pan No. Aaacn5018L) (Respondent) (Appellant)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263

documents which were sought from the appellant and accordingly, AO took a permissible view. The order passed by the AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue, hence, the order of PCIT should be set aside. 3. That the PCIT ought to have checked that the assessment ... order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and that the PCIT can assume jurisdiction u/s. 263 only if the twin conditions of the assessment order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue are satisfied. 4. The PCIT ought to have seen that

M/S. Citadines Omr Aparthotel Private Limited, Chennai vs. ITO Corp Ward 1(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the stay application of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 303/CHNY/2026[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.303/Chny/2026 & Sa No.29/Chny/2026 (Arising Out Of Ita No.303/Chny/2026) िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Citadines Omr Aparthotel Pvt. The Income Tax Officer, Ltd., Vs. Corporate Ward-1(3), No.94, Somerset Greenways, Chennai. Sathyadev Avenue, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aadcr 5653C

For Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 270ASection 270A(6)(a)Section 40A(7)

inadvertently omitted to disallow prior period expenditure and accordingly conceded to the disallowance. The PCIT accordingly held the order u/s.143(3) as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and set aside the order with a direction to the AO to consider the disallowance. The A.O passed

Rohan Landscape Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

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

ITA 3635/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263Section 3

transactions and their linkage with business activities required verification. On these premises, the Principal Commissioner concluded that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and directed the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh assessment order after carrying out further enquiries. 15. In response ... empowers the Principal Commissioner to revise an assessment only if he is satisfied that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. These twin conditions are cumulative and conjunctive; the absence of either is fatal to the assumption of revisionary