← 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

Kadungalloor Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. No.2165, Karumaloor vs. Income Tax Officer, Aluva

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 346/COCH/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

While the matter stood thus, the ld. Pr. CIT found that the assessment order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial Kadungalloor Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. to the interests of Revenue, as the AO failed to verify the issue of taxability of reserves/provisions debited to Profit & Loss ... deducted from taxable income. Therefore, formed an opinion that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. Accordingly, issued show cause notice proposing revision of the assessment order u/s. 263 of the Act. In response to the show cause notice the appellant society had filed objection

Kerala Transport Development Finance Corporation Ltd, Trivandrum vs. The PCIT, Trivandrum

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 443/COCH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year:2018-19 Kerala Transport Development Finance .......... Appellant Corporation Limited, Thiruvananthapuram. Pan: Aabck1318F Vs.

For Appellant: Smt. Anoopa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Veni Raj, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 32

23/03/2021 accepting the returned income. Subsequently, on review of the assessment record, the Ld. PCIT, Trivendrum, formed an opinion that the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue for the reasons that the AO accepted the following two claims without any verification ie., (i) The claim ... conferred the power of revision on the Commissioner of Income Tax U/s. 263 of the Act in case the assessment order passed is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. In order to invoke the power of revision, the above two conditions are required to be satisfied cumulatively. References

Vikas Dugar L/H of Late Shri Keshari Singh Dugar, Jaipur vs. PCIT (Central) Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, the all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 388/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: or in the course of hearing of the appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Prakul Khurana, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 263

case and in law, Ld. PCIT has grossly erred in holding that the Assessment Order dated 23.09.2021 passed by Ld. AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 4. Under facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld PCIT(Central) has erred in holding assessment ... order passed by Ld. AO to be erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue in respect of issue which were outside the scope of the Ld. Assessing Officer, therefore, Ld. PCIT could not have exercised jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. 5. Under facts and circumstances of the case

Vikas Dugar L/H of Late Shri Keshari Singh Dugar, Jaipur vs. PCIT (Central), Jaipur

In the result, the all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 387/JPR/2025[A.Y.2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Jul 2025

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Prakul Khurana, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 263

case and in law, Ld. PCIT has grossly erred in holding that the Assessment Order dated 23.09.2021 passed by Ld. AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 4. Under facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld PCIT(Central) has erred in holding assessment ... order passed by Ld. AO to be erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue in respect of issue which were outside the scope of the Ld. Assessing Officer, therefore, Ld. PCIT could not have exercised jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. 5. Under facts and circumstances of the case

Vikas Dugar Legal Heir of Late Shri Keshari Singh Dugar, Jaipur vs. PCIT (Central), Jaipur

In the result, the all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 386/JPR/2025[A.Y. 2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Jul 2025

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Prakul Khurana, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 263

case and in law, Ld. PCIT has grossly erred in holding that the Assessment Order dated 23.09.2021 passed by Ld. AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 4. Under facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld PCIT(Central) has erred in holding assessment ... order passed by Ld. AO to be erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue in respect of issue which were outside the scope of the Ld. Assessing Officer, therefore, Ld. PCIT could not have exercised jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. 5. Under facts and circumstances of the case

Bhagwati Steel Processors, Chandigarh vs. PCIT, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 435/CHANDI/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jul 2025AY 2021-22
For Appellant: Shri T.N. Singla, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

returned income. 4. The PCIT, upon examination of records, invoked jurisdiction under Section 263 on the ground that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue on the following issues: An apparent discrepancy of Rs.3.53 crore between turnover reported in GSTR-9/Form 26AS ... same cannot be revised under Section 263 unless the PCIT undertakes fresh verification and demonstrates how the AO's conclusion is erroneous and prejudicial. 6. The Ld. CIT-DR supported the revision order, contending that the AO had failed to verify key issues and accepted the assessee's claims without

Mahasakthi Bio Enercon Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 467/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:467/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mahasakthi Bio Enercon Private Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, Vs. Income Tax, No.64, Dr. Nanjappa Road, Central Circle -1, Coimbatore – 641 018. Coimbatore. [Pan:Aabci-0022-N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. T. Banusekar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T.

For Appellant: Shri. T. Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 263

Commissioner of Income Tax could not have assumed jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act over a non-est assessment order which can never be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. - L.G.Electronics Inc Ltd v ACIT in ITA No.646 to 653 / Del / 2021 – Delhi Tribunal – Page No. 30 (Para ... order. Hence the ld.PCIT could not have assumed jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act over a non-est assessment order which can never be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 17. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld.PCIT could not look into the issue which the Assessing Officer

Asian Institute of Gastroenterology Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 are allowed

ITA 610/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, S. VenugopalFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

response, the assessee submitted that, the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/sec.143(3) r.w.s.144B of the Act, dated 20.09.2022 is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the revenue because, the Assessing Officer has passed the assessment order after due verification of relevant aspects including investments ... under section 14A of the Act. Therefore, the assessment order passed by Assessing Officer cannot be 5 ITA.Nos.609 & 610/Hyd./2025 considered as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The learned PCIT after considering relevant submissions of the assessee and also taking note of provisions of section

Asian Institute of Gastroenterology Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for

ITA 609/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, S. VenugopalFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

response, the assessee submitted that, the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/sec.143(3) r.w.s.144B of the Act, dated 20.09.2022 is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the revenue because, the Assessing Officer has passed the assessment order after due verification of relevant aspects including investments ... disallowance under section 14A of the Act. Therefore, the assessment order passed by Assessing Officer cannot be ITA.Nos.609 & 610/Hyd./2025 considered as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The learned PCIT after considering relevant submissions of the assessee and also taking note of provisions of section

Sushil Mitruka, Siliguri vs. P.C.I.T., Siliguri

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 490/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

expenditure as submitted by the DVO as per report was only Rs.37,53,227/-, therefore, the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and accordingly, issued show cause notice u/s. 263 of the Act as to why the assessment should ... Assessing Officer to conduct proper enquiry/verification of this issue before arriving at the final decision on the ground that the said order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 7. The Ld. AR submitted before us that in this case, the additions had already been made

Sushil Mitruka, Siliguri vs. P.C.I.T., Siliguri

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 489/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

expenditure as submitted by the DVO as per report was only Rs.37,53,227/-, therefore, the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and accordingly, issued show cause notice u/s. 263 of the Act as to why the assessment should ... Assessing Officer to conduct proper enquiry/verification of this issue before arriving at the final decision on the ground that the said order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 7. The Ld. AR submitted before us that in this case, the additions had already been made

Sushil Mitruka, Siliguri vs. P.C.I.T., Siliguri

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 488/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

expenditure as submitted by the DVO as per report was only Rs.37,53,227/-, therefore, the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and accordingly, issued show cause notice u/s. 263 of the Act as to why the assessment should ... Assessing Officer to conduct proper enquiry/verification of this issue before arriving at the final decision on the ground that the said order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 7. The Ld. AR submitted before us that in this case, the additions had already been made

Sushil Mitruka, Siliguri vs. P.C.I.T., Siliguri

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 487/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

expenditure as submitted by the DVO as per report was only Rs.37,53,227/-, therefore, the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and accordingly, issued show cause notice u/s. 263 of the Act as to why the assessment should ... Assessing Officer to conduct proper enquiry/verification of this issue before arriving at the final decision on the ground that the said order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 7. The Ld. AR submitted before us that in this case, the additions had already been made

The Orchid Heights Co.Op Housing Service Society Limited, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-3(3)(5), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 26/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Ms Suchitra Kamblethe Orchid Heights Co-Op Income Tax Officer, Vs. Housing Service Society Ward-3(3)(5), Limited, Ahmedabad. Applewood Township, Nr. Shantipura Circle, Ahmedabad-382210.. [Pan :Aagat8437 K] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri M J Ranpura, Ar Respondent By: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.07.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:- Delay Condoned This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Appellate Order Dated 29.04.2024 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Relating To The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeals:

For Appellant: Shri M J Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. DR
Section 194ASection 194A(3)(v)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

deduction on interest earned by assessee, a cooperative society, from investment made with a cooperative bank under section 80P(2)(d) which was erroneous and prejudicial to Interest of revenue Tribunal reversed Principal Commissioner's order holding that cooperative bank was a cooperative society registered under Gujarat State Cooperative Societies ... which is in consonance with the various decisions of the Court as a twin condition invoking section 263 as to the assessment being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue are not being fulfilled. [Para 33]  In view of the foregoing reasons the question is answered in favour

Ankit Agarwal, Barakar, West Burdwan vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(1), Asansol

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 945/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Jul 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 144Section 250Section 263

impugned order was non speaking to the extent that it was not readily visible as to why the order of Ld. AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. This was specially so when the Ld. AO’s order itself was passed under section

Anunta Technology Management Services Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2407/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailanunta Technology Management Services Ltd., Level – 2, Block – 6, Nirlon Knowledge Park, Goregaon East, S.O. Mumbai ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400063 Pan : Aakca6159M V/S Dcit – 4(1)(1), ……………… Respondent Mumbai Assessee By : Shri K.K. Ved Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri K.K. VedFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 37(1)

PCIT has erred in holding that the Assessment Order dated 09 September 2022 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Act was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. 1.2.2 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant submits that, the AO prior ... verification basis the details/ documents sought from the Appellant during the course of assessment proceedings, and hence, the Assessment Order passed is neither 'erroneous' nor 'prejudicial' to the interest of the revenue. 1.2.3 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant submits that, the order

R.D. Vohra HUF, New Delhi vs. PCIT, Faridabad

In the result, the application for condonation of delay of 165 days in filing

ITA 4948/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar Gupta, CA & Shri J.PFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 263

earlier proceedings U/s.147 which were initiated only and specifically for the same issue, hence the relevant order U/s.147/144B is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue, hence the impugned proceedings U/s.263 are illegal, unwarranted and deserves to be quashed”. Appellant/assessee through application dated 19.06.2025 requested for admission ... KRISHAK BHARATI CO-OP. LTD. (2017) 295 CTR (Del) 181 Validity-Issue not subject-matter of notice vis-a-vis erroneous and prejudicial order- CIT has no jurisdiction to issue any directions with regard to any issue on which no show-cause notice was issued- Further, in fact the queries

Karam Vir Yadav, Gurgaon vs. Assessing Officer, NFAC

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

ITA 2605/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmakaramvir Yadav, Vs. Assessing Officer, 1135, Sector 46, Nfac, Delhi. Gurgaon – 122 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Abipy5863E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ranjan Chopra, Ca Revenue By : Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.04.2025 Date Of Order : 09.07.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 29.03.2024 For Assessment Year 2020-21 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That Having Regard To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Order Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Assessee Company, 1961. 2. That Having Regard To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Pr. Cit Erred In Passing Order U/S 263 Of The Act, So Much So That, The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Do Not Satisfy The Statutory Twin Conditions Prescribed Under Section 263 Of The Act, Viz., (I) That The Assessment

For Appellant: Shri Ranjan Chopra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28

applicable judgments of jurisdictional High Court ignoring the statutory provisions and read with Explanation 2 of section 263, can be held as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue by PCIT u/s 263? 3. Accordingly, Ld. PCIT listed various conditions which are mandatory to claim the exemption ... agricultural land is not exempt u/s 10(37) of Income Tax Act, 1961.The assessment order of the Assessing Officer is found to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue on the above issues. 67. The Commissioner u/s. 263 has been assigned the duty in the interest of justice

Jawahal Lal Gulati, 147/B, Yamuna Enclave, Panipat, Haryana vs. Pr. CIT, Rohtak

ITA 3549/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Madhumita Royjawahar Lal Gulati Vs. Pr.Cit, 147/B, Yamuna Enclave, Gurgaon Panipat, Haryana – 110038 Haryana – 132103 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaypg9251D Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. J.B. Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Dayainder Singh, CIT, DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 68Section 69

proceeding initiated under Section 263 of the Act by the PCIT culminating in quashing the order passed by the Ld. AO holding it erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue without confirming as to which section out of Sections 68/69/69A/69B/69C/69D of the Act was applicable, the order itself ... highly debatable issue and therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act alleging the order of AO erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue by way of picking up the debatable issue is wrong. That particular judgment has also been considered by the judgment passed

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur vs. Trilok Dewan, Sikar

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 303/JPR/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2025

2.7.ii. The Id. CIT(A) has no role in the initiation of such proceedings – indeed, if an assessment is found to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, for missing an issue, the law empowers the Commissioner (administratively, under Section 263), not the CIT(A) in an appellate