← 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

Shri Premnarayan, Harsud, Khandwa vs. The PCIT-1, Indore

In the result, appeals of the assesse in ITANo

ITA 262/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Premnarayan Pcit (1) 31, Somgaon Khurd, Aaykar Bhawan Harsud, Vs. Indore Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Cjzpp1164J Smt. Sharda Pcit (1) A/45, Naya Harsud, Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Khandwa Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Fdxps2997P Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2024

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)Section 263Section 54B

even when the assessment order was passed after conducting necessary enquiries and after due application of mind and such order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. 2 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... views are possible and the AO 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 AO is unsustainable in law. 4.2 He has contended that the Assessing

Shanthi Gold House, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward-1(6), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is dismissed

ITA 746/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.746/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shanthi Gold House, Income Tax Officer, No.72, Usman Road, T.Nagar, Non-Corporate Ward-1(6), Chennai -600 017. Chennai [Pan: Aaafs1612C] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S.Girish Kumar, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri V.Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2024

For Appellant: Shri S.Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V.Nandakumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 269SSection 271DSection 40A(3)

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 revenue unless the view taken by the ITO is unsustainable. 6. In the instant case, the assessment order ... Assessment Order u/s 143(3) dated 21.12.2019 of the Act without application of mind. The assessment order so passed, therefore, is considered both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. :- 7 -: 7.2 Accordingly, the assessment order is hereby partly set aside u/s 263 of the Act, with

Vinod Banwarilal Saraf, Mumbai vs. PCIT (Central), Mumbai

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

ITA 2563/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth KothariFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor, CIT, DR
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 153ASection 263Section 68

section 263 held that assessment order falls squarely within these clauses. Thus, he set aside the assessment order holding it as erroneous and prejudicial and directed the ld. Assessing Officer to complete the assessment de novo by complying with the direction so given. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before ... judge the action of CIT taken under section 263 – (i) The CIT must record satisfaction that the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Both the conditions must be fulfilled. (ii) Sec. 263 cannot be invoked to correct each and every type

Vinod Banwarilal Saraf, Mumbai vs. PCIT (Central), Mumbai

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

ITA 2562/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth KothariFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor, CIT, DR
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 153ASection 263Section 68

section 263 held that assessment order falls squarely within these clauses. Thus, he set aside the assessment order holding it as erroneous and prejudicial and directed the ld. Assessing Officer to complete the assessment de novo by complying with the direction so given. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before ... judge the action of CIT taken under section 263 – (i) The CIT must record satisfaction that the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Both the conditions must be fulfilled. (ii) Sec. 263 cannot be invoked to correct each and every type

American Express (India) Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Delhi, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2468/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Ritu Sharma,CIT-DR
Section 135Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 80G

Revenue. Hence, the PCIT initiated revisional proceedings. The PCIT in order passed u/s. 263 of the Act held the assessment 4 order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. On appeal to the Tribunal, the coordinate bench examined this issue and held as under:- “15. Keeping the aforesaid judicial

Nrupal Nareshchandra Raja, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 839/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 263

Officer had done in the reassessment order was taking a plausible view of the matter, and therefore, the said reassessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue, and hence, the order passed by the learned PCIT u/s.263 is bad in law and liable to be quashed ... facts and circumstances of the case, it be so held that the order passed by the learned Assessing Officer was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Department, and hence, the order passed by the learned PCIT u/s.263 be quashed. Your Appellant reserves the right to add, alter

Divyesh Bhupendra Desai, Ahmedabad vs. The PCIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 802/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

notices, the assessee submitted that the faceless Assessing Officer had verified the issue and therefore, the order of the Assessing Officer is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The assessee submitted that he had purchased unit No. 608 in the scheme of Kalhaar Blues and Greens ... account of on-money paid by the assessee. Accordingly, the PCIT held that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 5. The assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by the PCIT, holding that the assessment

Shah Jitendrakumar Mafatlal HUF, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad vs. PCIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 645/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Sulabh Padshah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 151Section 263

ground that order passed by the A.O. u/s 147 rws 144B of the Act for A.Y. 2014-15 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. It is submitted that the order passed by the learned A.O. is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. On facts ... entries. Despite this, the Assessing Officer (A.O.) did not make any additions related to these accommodation entries, and therefore, the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The assessee submitted that the A.O. had verified the issue before passing the assessment order under section

Narendra Kumar Agrawal, Burhanpur vs. PCIT Indore-1, Indore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 345/IND/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaninarendra Kumar Agrawal Pcit (1) 203, Ck Campus Aaykar Bhawan Bahadarpur Road Vs. Indore Burhanpur (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adapa0131B Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2024

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 263

proceedings u/s 263 of the Act even when the said assessment order as passed by the ITANo.345/Ind/2024 Narendra Kumar Agrawal A.O. was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The present order as passed by the Ld. Pr. CIT u/s 263 without properly appreciating the facts ... where two views are possible and the AO has taken one view which the Commissioner does not agree it cannot be treated as erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue unless view taken by the AO is unsustainable in law. Page 5 of 27 ITANo.345/Ind/2024 Narendra Kumar Agrawal

International Seaport Dredging Private Limited, Chennai vs. PCIT - 1, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1597/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri. Sriram Seshadri, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baram Som, IRS, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 71Section 79

order u/s 147 read with section 144B of the Act without due verification. The assessment order so passed, therefore, is considered both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Accordingly, the ld. PCIT partly set aside the assessment order u/s 263 of the Act, with a direction ... 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 interests of the Revenue, unless the view taken by the Income- tax Officer is unsustainable in law." viii. We may refer recent

Mahendra Kumar Sharma, Churu vs. PCIT (Central), Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 725/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. R. P. Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69A

facts and circumstances of the case and law, Ld PCIT has erred in holding the order passed u/s 143(3) dated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The order passed u/s 263 is bad in law and therefore the action of ld. PCIT is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary ... Relief may please be granted by quashing the order passed u/s 263 and holding the order passed u/s 143(3) dated as not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 2. The assessee craves his right to add, amend, or alter any of the ground on or before

Sh. Kirodi Mal Singhal, Alwar vs. PCIT(Central), Jaipur

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 664/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: moving towards the facts of the case we would like to mention that the assessee has assailed the appeal in ITA No.664/JP/2024 on the following grounds; "1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, order passed by the Ld. PCIT u/s 263 is illegal & bad in law and the same be quashed. 2. The Ld. PCIT has erred on facts and in law in holding that the

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

PCIT noted that the order passed u/s 143(3) for the AY 2019-20 dated 20.09.2021 was Sh. Kamlesh Singhal vs. PCIT erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. Accordingly, a show cause notice u/s 263, on the issued that remained to be examined/verified while passing assessment order, was issued ... taken one view with respect to which the Commissioner does not Sh. Kamlesh Singhal vs. PCIT agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the revenue , unless the view taken by the Income Tax Officer is unsustainable in law. In terms of these observations

Sh. Kamlesh Singhal, Alwar vs. PCIT(Central), Jaipur

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 663/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: moving towards the facts of the case we would like to mention that the assessee has assailed the appeal in ITA No.664/JP/2024 on the following grounds; "1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, order passed by the Ld. PCIT u/s 263 is illegal & bad in law and the same be quashed. 2. The Ld. PCIT has erred on facts and in law in holding that the

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

PCIT noted that the order passed u/s 143(3) for the AY 2019-20 dated 20.09.2021 was Sh. Kamlesh Singhal vs. PCIT erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. Accordingly, a show cause notice u/s 263, on the issued that remained to be examined/verified while passing assessment order, was issued ... taken one view with respect to which the Commissioner does not Sh. Kamlesh Singhal vs. PCIT agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the revenue , unless the view taken by the Income Tax Officer is unsustainable in law. In terms of these observations

Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta, Alwar vs. PCIT(Central), Jaipur

In the result, both appeals of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 661/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: moving towards the facts of the case we would like to mention that the assessee has assailed the appeal in ITA No.644/JP/2024 on the following grounds; "1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, order passed by the Ld. PCIT u/s 263 is illegal & bad in law and the same be quashed. 2. The Ld. PCIT has erred on facts and in law in holding that the

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 127Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

income declared and offered in the return of income so filed. Therefore, ld. PCIT noted that the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In light of this facts action was initiated by invoking the provision of section 263 of the Act by issuing a show cause ... erroneous order of the Income Tax Officer, the Revenue is losing tax lawfully payable by a person, it will certainly be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue" 7. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons discussed above, the assessment order dated

Sh. Rajeev Jain, Alwar vs. PCIT(Central), Jaipur

In the result, both appeals of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 644/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 127Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

income declared and offered in the return of income so filed. Therefore, ld. PCIT noted that the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In light of this facts action was initiated by invoking the provision of section 263 of the Act by issuing a show cause ... erroneous order of the Income Tax Officer, the Revenue is losing tax lawfully payable by a person, it will certainly be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue" 7. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons discussed above, the assessment order dated

Fatehpuria Transformers and Switchgears Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. PCIT-1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 224/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Mathur, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik, CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

facts in assuming Jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and has erred in holding the assessment order dated 08/04/2021 as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 2. The Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, PCIT, erred in law and on facts in setting aside ... vide parall of the order held that Assessment order dated 08/04/2021 for AY 2018-19 passed by AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and said order has been passed by the AO in a routine and casual manner. The PCIT held that AO has passed

Arvind Kumar Agrawal, Gurgaon vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Incoem Tax Department

In the results, the appeal of assessee stands dismissed

ITA 139/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Kataria, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

income declared and offered in the return of income so filed. Therefore, ld. PCIT noted that the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and the action was initiated by invoking the provision of section 263 of the Act by issuing a show cause notice ... order passed by the ld. Pr. CIT is bad in law and prayed to be quashed. Without prejudice to above: 1.1 Assessment neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue: At the outset it is submitted that the impugned transaction is duly covered by the first proviso

Zeel Infotech Private Limited, Kandivli, Mumbai Suburban vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai-5, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2674/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2018-19 Zeel Infotech Pvt. Ltd. Pcit, Mumbai-5, Mumbai 402, Gundecha Indl. Complex, Vs Akurli Road, Near Big Bazar, Kandivali East, Mumbai-400101. Pan: Aaacz 1721 C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suhas Dabade, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

above facts and circumstances we find that ld. PCIT has not substantiated how the order passed by the assessing officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In fact, the assessing officer has passed a detailed speaking order after following the decision of Hon’ble High Court

Shams Professional Private Limited(Now Merged With Ashvins Agri Products Pvt Ltd), New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT - 7, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 639/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Aman Garg, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Dhami, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

despite the fact that even after thorough examination, no specific findings have been given on the issue how the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 10. (i) Without prejudice to the above, learned PCIT has erred in directing the AO to disallow the interest

Chandrakant Prahladbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(2) Present Jurisdiction the ITO, Ward-1(2)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 8/AHD/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Aug 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah & Shri BhadreshFor Respondent: Smt. Trupti Patel, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263

under Section 263 of the Act. The Pr. CIT found that the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 18/03/2016 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The Pr. CIT observed that the Assessing Officer (AO) had failed to conduct necessary inquiries and investigations regarding