“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

Shree Samarth Electricals Pvt Ltd, Jamnagar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jamnagar

ITA 610/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Paun, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, ld.CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 69

added to your total income. 5. As such, the order passed by the assessing officer prima facie is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue within the meaning of the provisions of section 263 of the I.T. Act 1961. Therefore, I intend to revise the order ... during the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer has examined all these facts,therefore, the order passed by the assessing officer should not be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 21. About the TDS issue raised by the Ld.PCIT, the ld Counsel submitted the List of these transactions

Shree Samarth Switchgear and Transmission Pvt Ltd, Jamnagar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jamnagar

ITA 609/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Paun, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, ld.CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 69

P P Corporation, Rajkot vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 245/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot24 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

genuineness of the Landers, and therefore order passed by the assessing officer after making due application of mind cannot be termed as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 5. However, learned PCIT rejected the contention of the assessee, and observed that in some cases, the bank statements ... also submitted its reply in response to these documents with documentary evidence. Therefore, assessment framed by the assessing officer should not be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue and, therefore, the ld.Counsel for the assessee prayed before the Bench that order passed by the Ld.PCIT u/s.263

M/S. Sarju Vitrified Pvt. Ltd., Morbi-363641 vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

ITA 83/RJT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot24 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68Section 68o

well as on facts in not considering the submissions of the assessee on the strength of which the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue and therefore, the provisions of Section 263 of the Act were not applicable to the case of the assessee. 3.The ... verify/ examine the facts and issues covered u/s 68. The order passed by the Assessing Officer cannot be said to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue and hence, we request your goodself to drop the proposed revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Income

Sardarsarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd., Gandhinagar vs. The Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad-3, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 821/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.821/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sardarsarovar Narmada The Pr.Cit, बनाम/ Nigam Ltd. Ahmedabad-3 V/S. Block-12, 1St Floor Ahmedabad – 380 014 Near Sachivalaya Complex Gandhiangar -382 010 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaccs 6704 L अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Arti N. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Alpesh Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/04/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Ms. Arti N. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 37(1)

disallow Labour welfare cess amounting to Rs.20.26 crores which renders the assessment order dated 27.05.2021 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, despite the fact that the learned Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings, thoroughly reviewed all the details, including ... submitted Sardarsarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. vs. The Pr.CIT Asst. Year : 2018-19 4 that order passed by learned AO was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the department and hence provision of section 263 should not have been invoked at all. It is submitted that

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata vs. Mala Banerjee, Barrackpore

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 152/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263Section 40Section 40A

make any TDS out of labour charges and in this way, the order passed u/s 143(3) has been found to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Accordingly, the Ld. PCIT passed an order u/s 263, set aside the assessment order passed

Mcleod Russel India Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT, Kolkata - 2, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1136/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1136/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016) Mcleod Russel India Limited, Vs Pr.Cit, Kolkata-2 Four Mangoe Lane, Surendra Mohan Ghosh Sarani, Kolkata-700001 Pan No. :Aaace 6918 J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri N.S.Saini, Ar & Ms. Priyanka Salarpuria, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.N.Barnwal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.03.2024, Passed By The Ld. Pr.Cit, Kolkata-2, U/S.263 Of The Act For The Assessment Year 2015-2016 On The Following Grounds :- 1. On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Pr. Cit Has Erred In Passing The Order U/S 263 By Invoking Of Section 263 Of The Act, Although The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 147 R.W.S. 143(3) Of The I. T. Act, 1961 Was Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue. 2. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Reassessment Order For A.Y. 2015-16 Which Is Sought To Be Revised By The Ld. Pcit U/S 263 Had Neither Considered The Issue Of Eligibility For Deduction U/S 801E Of The 1.T. Act In The Reassessment Proceedings Nor The Reopening Of The Assessment Made On That Ground. Therefore, The Issue Does Not Arise Out Of The Order Passed U/S 147 Of The 1.T. Act, 1961. 3. For That On The Facts Of The Case & Law, The Issue Of Notice U/S 263 Of The Act On The Ground That The Assessee Company

For Appellant: Shri N.S.Saini, AR & Ms. PriyankaFor Respondent: Shri P.N.Barnwal, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 244ASection 263Section 263(1)Section 801ESection 80I

Section 263 of the Act, although the assessment order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the I. T. Act, 1961 was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 2. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the reassessment ... held that there is a mistake in calculating the excess payment of Rs.2,30,64,417/-, which rendered the the assessment framed as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Accordingly, the ld. Pr.CIT revised the assessment framed by the ld. AO u/s.147/143(3) of the Act by directing

Anjali Neeraj Hardikar, Pune vs. PCIT (Central), Mumbai-3, Mumbai

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

ITA 2704/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankaranjali Neeraj Hardikar Vs. Pcit (Central) E/3, Vibhawari Apartments, 1901, 19Th Floor, Air Sahwas Society, Lane No.1, India Bldg, Nariman Karve Nagar – 411052. Point, Maharashtra – 400021. Pan/Gir No. Aafph0320K (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80G

ACIT, [2010] 4 ITR 297 (Trib,) had held that even dropping of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Therefore, considering these facts, we found that Ld. Pr. CIT was rightly satisfied that the penalty order dated

M/S R.R.D.Developers, Gwlior vs. Pr.CIT., Gwalior

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 320/AGR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra23 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 320/Agr/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2013-14) M/S R.R.D. Developers Pr. Cit बनाम/ Kedarpur, In Front Of Tata Gwalior. Showroom, Shivpuri Link Vs. Road, Gwalior. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aamfr-5438-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : None ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain – Ld. Cit/Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23-04-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Assails Invocation Of Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Gwalior (Pr.Cit) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 17-03-2016. At The Time Of Hearing, None Appeared For Assessee. Accordingly, The Appeal Was Proceeded With The Able Assistance Of Ld. Cit-Dr Who Supported The Revision Of The Order. 2. Upon Perusal Of Assessment Order, It Could Be Seen That The Assessee’S Return Of Income Was Scrutinized & During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, Notices U/S 142(1) Were Issued From Time To Time Which Were Duly Been Responded To By The Assessee. Accepting

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain – Ld. CIT/DR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

impugned order seeks to make fishing and roving enquiries only. No concrete finding has been rendered as to how the assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue which runs contrary to the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case ... Housing Projects Ltd. (20 Taxmann.com 587). In the present case, there is no finding on merits as to how the order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The mere advances as received by the assessee from its customers would not trigger the provisions of Sec.68

Shilpa Tanuj Pugalia, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT, Central, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 741/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT(DR)

Section 147Section 148Section 263

investigating the issue, merely directed the AO to frame the assessment order afresh. Without there being any positive finding about order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, the action of Ld. PCIT is without jurisdiction and illegal and hence deserves to be deleted ... proceeded to pass an order u/s 263 of the Act holding that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer on 18.03.2022 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, as it was completed without conducting the necessary Shilpa Tanuj Pugalia Vs. PCIT Asst. Year

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai vs. Ramco Industries Limited, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3045/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Respondent: Mr.S. Muralidhar, FCA

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80Section 801A(7)Section 80I

following a revisionary directive from the Ld.Pr.CIT. Later, again the Ld.Pr.CIT found that reassessment order passed u/s.143(3)/263 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue and he directed the AO to reassess the case with specific instructions to re-determine the quantum of deduction allowable

DCIT Central Circle 8(4), Mumbai vs. Ramesh Ravji Chheda, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are

ITA 968/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 2(47)Section 45Section 6

No.968/Mum/2025 and others Ramesh Ravji Chheda and others passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) read with section 144 A was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and, therefore, the Commissioner of Income Tax was justified in exercising the jurisdiction under section

M/S. Jindal Brugs Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 947/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Hakkani, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Byomakesh Pradipta Kumar

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

hand. Even otherwise we did not find any material and/or reason available on record to declare the assessment order under consideration, as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Thus on the aforesaid analyzations, the impugned order under consideration is un-sustainable and consequently the same is quashed

DCIT Central Circle 8(4), Mumbai vs. Mahendra Ravji Chheda, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are

ITA 1001/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 2(47)Section 45Section 6

justified in holding that the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) read with section 144 A was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and, therefore, the Commissioner of Income Tax was justified in exercising the jurisdiction under section

DCIT Central Circle 8(4), Mumbai vs. Rasik Kunverji Chheda, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are

ITA 1000/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 2(47)Section 45Section 6

Anjali Sharma, Agra vs. ITO Ward 2(1)(1), Agra

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 77/AGR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 77/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2018-19) Ms. Anjali Singhal Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ 22, Vaibhav Kunj, Dayalbagh, Ward 2(1)(1), Agra. Vs. Agra. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Culps-2323-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Pankaj Gargh, Adv. – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Assails Invocation Of Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Agra (Pr.Cit) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19 Vide Impugned Order Dated 21-03-2023 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 01-02-2021. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, Our Adjudication Would Be As Under. The Registry Has Noted Delay Of 285 Days In The Appeal Which Stand Condoned. 2. Upon Perusal Of Assessment Order, It Could Be Seen That The Assessee’S Return Of Income Was Selected To Verify The Issue Of Low Income In Comparison To Large Commission Receipt. The Ld. Ao

For Appellant: Sh. Pankaj Gargh, Adv. – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 192Section 263Section 40A(3)

were made on all the issues during assessment proceedings itself. However, rejecting the same, Ld. Pr. CIT held the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and directed Ld. AO to pass fresh order on all these issues. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further ... possible and the Income-tax Officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law. The said principal has been

Preeti Agrawal, Vaibhav Kunj Dayal Bagh Agra vs. Principal Commissioner Income Tax, Income Tax Agra

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 151/AGR/2024[ay-2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 151/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2018-19) Ms. Preeti Agrawal Pr. Cit- 1, बनाम/ 22, Vaibhav Kunj, Jyoti Road, Agra. Vs. Dayalbagh, Agra. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ahcpa-6085-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Pankaj Gargh, Adv. – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Assails Invocation Of Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Agra For (Pr.Cit) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19 Vide Impugned Order Dated 23-03-2023 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 27-01-2021. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, Our Adjudication Would Be As Under. The Registry Has Noted Delay Of 330 Days In The Appeal Which Stand Condoned. 2. Upon Perusal Of Assessment Order, It Could Be Seen That The Assessee’S Return Of Income Was Selected To Verify The Issue Of Low Income In Comparison To Large Commission Receipt. The Ld. Ao

For Appellant: Sh. Pankaj Gargh, Adv. – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 192Section 263Section 40A(3)

Shri Ram Saran Mittal, Agra vs. Pr CIT - 1, Agra

The appeal stand allowed as indicated upon conclusion of hearing

ITA 27/AGR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.27/Agr/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) बनाम/ Sh. Ram Saran Mittal Ccit(Osd)/Pcit-1, 62-B, Nehru Nagar, Agra. Agra. Vs. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ablpm-2281-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Sahib P. Satsangi, Ca – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Assails Invocation Of Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Agra (Pr.Cit) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Vide Impugned Order Dated 31-03-2022 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 30-11-2019. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, Our Adjudication Would Be As Under. 2. Upon Perusal Of Assessment Order, It Could Be Seen That The Assessee’S Return Of Income Was Accepted In Scrutiny Assessment. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, Notices U/S 142(1) Were Issued To The Assessee Which Were Duly Been Responded To By The Assessee.

For Appellant: Sh. Sahib P. SatsangI, CA – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. CIT-DR

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

were duly been responded to by the assessee. 3. Subsequent, Ld. Pr. CIT, upon perusal of case records, alleged that the order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and accordingly, show-caused the assessee wherein it was alleged that Ld. AO did not enquire ... impugned order, it could be ascertained that there is no independent finding by Ld. Pr. CIT as to how the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The revision has been sought merely to make fishing and roving enquiries. Except for issue of show-cause

Al-Hamd Agro Food Product Pvt. Ltd., Aligarh vs. PCIT-1, Agra

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 37/AGR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 37/Agr/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2016-17) Al-Hamd Agro Food Product P. Ltd. Pr. Cit - 1 बनाम/ C/O Deepak Singh, Advocate Agra. Vs. 2, Court Of Wards Compound, Aligarh. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafca-0964-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Deepak Singh, Adv. – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Assails Invocation Of Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Agra (Pr.Cit) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17 Vide Impugned Order Dated 31-03-2021 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 02-11-2016. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, Our Adjudication Would Be As Under. 2. Upon Perusal Of Case Records, It Could Be Seen That The Assessee’S Case Was Subjected To Limited Scrutiny. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, Notices U/S 142(1) Were Issued To The Assessee Calling For Various Details Which Were Duly Been Responded

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Singh, Adv. – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. CIT-DR

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

stated that due enquiries were made by Ld. AO. However, rejecting the same, Ld. Pr. CIT held the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and directed Ld. AO to pass fresh order after making necessary enquiries / investigations. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further ... possible and the Income-tax Officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law. The said principal has been

Rajish Kumar Gupta, Agra vs. Pr.CIT.-1, Agra

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 26/AGR/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Deependra Mohan, CA – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

placed on various judicial decisions to support the submissions. 4. However, rejecting the same, Ld. Pr. CIT held the order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and directed Ld. AO to pass fresh order on the two issues. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal ... matter of fact, which could not be done directly could not be done indirectly. Accordingly, the assessment could not be said to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue on the two issues as flagged in the revisionary order. It is another fact that both the issues