“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

Amazon Seller Services Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Tp), Bengaluru-1, Bengaluru

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

ITA 762/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)

Section 263

issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT-TP erred in revising the assessment order by holding the TPO order as erroneous insofar prejudicial to the interest of revenue under the provisions of section 263 of the Act. 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee ... learned CIT-TP exercised his power conferred under section 263 of the Act and proposed to revise the assessment order/ TPO as erroneous insofar prejudicial to the interest of the revenue on account of lack of necessary verification and examination. 7. The assessee in response to such notice submitted that

Daya Kishan Gill, Jind, Haryana vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 639/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 639/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Daya Kishan Gill, Vs. The Principal House No.2739B, B Block, बनाम Commissioner Of Urban Estate, Income Tax, Jind 126102 Panchkula "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Agdpg4634P

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

That the Ld. CIT has erred in passing an order under Section 263 of the Act in the absence of any erroneous position prejudicial to the interest by revenue, in the original assessment order passed by Ld. ITO under Section 143(3) of the Act. 5. That the Appellant craves ... concluded that the this was a case fit for revision u/s 263 of The Act as the assessment framed by the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and accordingly the said order 1 to be set aside and directing the AO to frame the assessment

Amruta Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The PCIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1111/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1110, 1111 & 1112/Ahd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2017-18) बनाम/ Amruta Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. The Pr. Cit 199, New Cloth Market, Ahmedabad-1 Vs. Opp. Raipur Darwaja, Sarangpur, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 380002 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaica0877A (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Ms. Astha Maniar, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit. Dr 18/09/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 21/10/2024

For Appellant: Ms. Astha Maniar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT. DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

verifying the total credits in the bank account vis-à-vis the revenue from operation, the order of the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Therefore, the impugned order u/s.263 of the Act dated 29.02.2024 was passed by the Ld. PCIT, after allowing an opportunity ... which the case was reopened was duly examined by the AO, there cannot be any question of the re-assessment order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. According to the Ld. AR, the mistake in respect of total credits in the bank account

Amruta Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The PCIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1110/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Ms. Astha Maniar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT. DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

Kerala Shipping and Inland Navigation Corporation Limited, Ernakulam vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Kochi

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 78/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Kerala Shipping & Inalnd Dcit, Corporate Circle - 1(1) Navigtation Corporation C.R. Building, I.S. Pres Road 38/924-A, Udaya Nagar Road Kochi 682018 Vs. Gandhi Nagar Kochi 682020 [Pan: Aabck4818L] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 1Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 199Section 263Section 69Section 69C

provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. 6. In view of the above the learned PCIT proposed to hold the assessment order as erroneous insofar prejudicial to the interest of the revenue by issuing notice under section 263 of the Act. 7. The assessee in response to notice under section ... claimed in the year under consideration which was allowed by the AO without conducting necessary inquiry. Therefore, the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the assessee. 11. Likewise, the AO in the body of the assessment has allowed the adjustment of addition made under

Kool Home Builders, Ernakulam-Maradu vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ernakulam, Kochi

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

ITA 584/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Kool Home Builders Principal Commissioner Of Vi/56, Nh-47 Bypass Income Tax Vs. Maradu, Cochin 682034 Kochi [Pan: Aalfk8274F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sherry Umman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

same cannot be counted as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. According to the learned A.R., the twin conditions of the order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue should be satisfied so as to invoke the provisions of section 263 of the Act. 8. On the other

Hindustan Construction Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1043/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyalhindustan Construction Company Ltd., Hincon House, Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (W), Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400 083. Pan No.: Aaach0968B ..... Appellant Vs. Pcit, Mumbai-6, R. No. 501, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400 020. ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Unadkat, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri K. C. Selvamani, Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 90Section 92C

determined. 3. As per the provisions of section 263 of the Act, if any assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is found erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue, the same can be revised under u/s 263 of the Act, to protect the interest of the Revenue

Dharambir, Gurgaon vs. Pr, CIT, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 787/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usdharambir Vs. Pr. Cit Village-Nakhrola, Naharpur, C.R. Building, Faridabad, Gurgaon, Haryana. Haryana. Pan No.Aumpd4924E (Appellant) (Respondent)

show cause notice that the impugned assessment orders passed under s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act is being considered erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue under s. 263 of the Act on three counts: - A. “Non examination of the sources as required of Cash deposits ... call for and examine the records of a proceeding under the Act and revise any order if he considers the same to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Pr.CIT can take recourse to revision under Section 263 of the Act where the assessment order

V.S. Natarajan, Thanjavur vs. ACIT, CC-3(2), Chennai

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1604/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1603 & 1604/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21 Valikaramuthu Subramanian Assistant Commissioner Of Natarajan, V. Income-Tax, No. 104-B, 3Rd Street, Central Circle -3(2), Mangalapuram, Medical College Chennai. Road, Voc Nagar, Thanjavur – 613 007. [Pan: Acypn-0616-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 263

should be prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, These conditions are conjunctive. In the instant case, there was nothing erroneous and prejudicial. An order of assessment passed by the Assessing Officer should not be interfered with only because another view is possible as held in the case of Malabar ... various judicial decisions of hon’ble courts(supra), we are of the view that the order passed by the AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Thus, we set aside the order of the PCIT. Hence, we quash the revision order passed by the PCIT

V.S. Natarajan, Thanjavur vs. ACIT, CC-3(2), Chennai

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1603/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri. Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 263

Faiveley Transport Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., Hosur vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1598/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri. Ashik Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80

twin conditions prescribed under Section 263 of the Act, i.e., the order of the Learned Assessing Officer ('Ld. AO') shall be 'erroneous' and 'prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue' are not satisfied. 2.2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. PCIT erred ... passing an order under section 263 of the Act dated March 31, 2024 and held that the original assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and directed the Ld. AO to examine the said issue in detail and pass a consequential order

Versatile Card Technology Private Limited, Sidco, Chromepet, Chennai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai-3, Income Tax Office, Main Building - IV Floor, Nungambakkam, Chennai

ITA 1392/CHNY/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1392/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Versatile Card Technology Private Principal Commissioner Of Limited, V. Income Tax, Chennai -3, Ac-21, 4Th Main Road, Sidco Income Tax Office, Main Industrial Estate, Building, Iv Floor, Thirumudivakkam, Nungambakkam, Chennai. Chrompet, Chennai – 600 044. [Pan:Aabcv-0567-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. Gopal Krishna Raju, Ca ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Gopal Krishna Raju, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 148Section 263

should be prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, These conditions are conjunctive. In the instant case, there was nothing erroneous and prejudicial. An order of assessment passed by the Assessing Officer should not be interfered with only because another view is possible as held in the case of Malabar ... above, the order passed u/s. 147 read with section 144B of the I.T.Act on 15.03.2022 by the Faceless Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue in terms of clause (a) and clause (b) of Explanation 2 under sub-section(1) of section 263 of the Income

Sandeep Kumar, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Faridabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1545/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263

PCIT, Faridabad in his order has not provided any material, evidence for holding the assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B to be erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Hence, the proceedings u/s 263 and the consequential order is wrong and bad in law. 3. The appellant contends ... ground at the time of hearing.” 7. Learned Authorized Representative for assessee submitted that Ld. PCIT erred in holding assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Learned PCIT has not taken any exercise of enquiry verification but has only directed AO to undertake enquiry

Sandeep Kumar, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Faridabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1542/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263

Vmobi Solutions Pvt Ltd, Mumbai, Maharashtra vs. PCIT (Central), Mumbai - 4, Mumbai, Maharashtra

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2173/MUM/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 264Section 35A

Subsequently, PCIT issued an order u/s 263 of the Act dated 26.02.2024 on the ground that the order of the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as an amount of Rs. 22,10,336/- claimed as filing fee in respect of increased in share capital ... remained to be added to the returned income rendering the order passed by the AO as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest to the revenue. In response to the notice u/s 264, the assessee submitted that the AO had examined the entire issue relating to the claim

Goodview Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 6(2), Kolkata

ITA 986/KOL/2024[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2024AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.986/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Goodview Marketing Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant 255, Canal Street, Shree Bhumi, Brijdham Housing Complex, Kolkata-700048. (Pan: Aadcg0582H) Vs. Income Tax Officer ………… Respondent Ward-6(2), Kolkata. Appearances By: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, Ar Appeared For Appellant Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 23.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 16.10.2024 Order Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Appeal Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2008-09 Is Directed Against The Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 15.03.2024 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Framed U/S. 144/263 Of The Act By Ito, Ward-6(2), Kolkata Dated 19.03.2014. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 68

after examining the records revisionary order was framed on 30.03.2013 setting aside the reassessment order holding it to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and directing the AO to again carry out assessment proceedings after making complete and full enquiry about the details of share application

Goutam Ghosh, Howrah vs. P.C.I.T., Kolkata - 13, Kolkata

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

ITA 1080/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 263Section 45Section 56(2)(X)Section 56(2)(x)Section 69

laid down in the statute and rightly followed the law and therefore, the assessment framed u/s 143(3) cannot be held to the erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the Department. Your appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, rescind, supplement or alter any of the ground or grounds ... views are possible and the ITO has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the revenue unless the view taken by the ITO is unsustainable in law. It has been held by this Court

Sadhwani Wood Product Private Limited, Kota vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 922/JPR/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Oct 2024AY 2018-2019

For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth Ranka, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 253(5)Section 263Section 5Section 69A

process in India. Its origin can be traced back to the imperative need for a mechanism that could rectify orders perceived as both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Its genesis lies in recognition of subjectivity of tax assessments which is coupled with intricacies of tax laws ... case it is seen that the A.O has not applied the proper provisions of the act, as discussed above therefore the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, and the action initiated u/s 263 is for the rectification of the mistake done by the Assessing officer

Sadhwani Wood Product Private Ltd, Kota vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central) Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 398/JPR/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Oct 2024AY 2019-2020

For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth Ranka, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 253(5)Section 263Section 5Section 69A

DCIT, CC-I, Chandigarh vs. Valco Industries Ltd., Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 574/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: The Hon'Ble Punjab & Haryana High Court? Ii) Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Is Right Holding Such Consequential Order As Void An Initio Ignoring The Facts That Order Passed By Ld. Pcit (Central), Gurugram U/S 263 Has Not Attained Its Finality? Iii) Whether On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Right In Holding That Consequential Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 263 Of The Act As Void As Initio Without Giving Any Liberty To The Revenue To Revive The Proceedings Consequent To Any Directions Or Order

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80I

under: "17. Thus, the Commissioner of Income-tax is entitled to revise an assessment order in so far as the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, but Explanation (c) places an embargo on the Commissioner of Income-tax in case of subject-matter