“assessment order erroneous”

Rectification & RevisionSection 263Section 263534 judgments

The decision most relied on for assessment order erroneous is Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (243 ITR 83), cited in 2,943 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on assessment order erroneous

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.

Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. ITO

106 ITR 1 · 1977 · Supreme Court

486

citing judgments

The principle of finality dictates that stale issues should not be reactivated, and lapse of time brings repose to judicial and quasi-judicial controversies. A Commissioner cannot substitute their judgment for the Assessing Officer's unless the assessment order is legally erroneous, not merely less elaborate, thus limiting revisionary powers under Section 263.

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.

Judgments citing assessment order erroneous

Qader Abdul Razzaque Abdul, Aurangabad vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Nashik

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 937/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.937/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Qader Abdul Razzaque Abdul, Principal Commissioner M/S. Captain Color Home Opp. Of Income Tax, Nashik-1 Bhartiya Hospital Raja Bazar Chh. Vs. Sambhajinagar (Aurangabad), Pin Code-431001 Pan : Acqpk8963L अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Shubham N. Rathi Department By : Shri Amit Bobde Date Of Hearing : 24-06-2025 Date Of 04-09-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order

For Appellant: Shri Shubham N. RathiFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 69

hands of A.O. Therefore, it can be inferred safely that AO has failed to cause proper inquiries and consequential verifications which rendered assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 07. In the light of the detailed discussion made hereinabove, I am of the considered opinion that

Val Organics Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy Comm. of Incomet Tax Circle-4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2473/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Val Organics Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income 4401, Kohinoor Square, B-Wing, Tax, Circle 4(3)(1), Mumbai. N.C. Kelkar Marg, Opp: Shiv Sena Vs. Room No. 649, 6Th Floor, Bhavan, Dadar West, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharashi Mumbai- 400028 Karve Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan No. Aaacv 4456 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Shekhar GuptaFor Respondent: Mr. Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR

Section 135Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 37Section 80G

learned PCIT thus concluded that the omission on the part of the Assessing Officer constituted an error of law rendering the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The relevant finding of the ld. PCIT is reproduced as under: “4.1 After going through the findings

Satya Venkata Krishna Ravi Prasad Koduri, Rajahmundry vs. ACIT, Circle - 1, Rajahmundry

ITA 294/VIZ/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon'Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon'Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita Nos. 290 & 291/Viz/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/ Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20) Veera Venkata Ramakrishna Mohana Rao Koduri Flat No. 201, Sri Towers Nh-16 Venkateswara Nagar Syamalanagar East Godavari District - 533103 Andhra Pradesh V. Acit - Circle – 1 Ayakkar Bhawan Veerabadhrapuram Rajahmundry – 533105 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpk0888C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) आईटीए. नं. / Ita Nos. 293 & 294/Viz/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/ Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20) Satya Venkata Krishna Ravi Prasad Koduri 81-10-3/6, Venkateswaranagar Near Ima Halla, Danavaipeta East Godavari District Andhra Pradesh V. Acit - Circle – 1 Ayakkar Bhawan Veerabadhrapuram Rajahmundry - 533105 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpk0889D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) करदाता का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Department Represented By सुनवाई समाप्त होने की तिथि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement Smt Hemalatha K, Ca Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit(Dr) 05.08.2025 22.08.2025

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 263Section 270A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, विशाखापटणम पीठ, विशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM “DIVISION” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM (HYBRID HEARING) श्री रवीश

Satya Venkata Krishna Ravi Prasad Koduri, East Godhavari vs. ACIT, Circle - 1, Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 293/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 263Section 270A

section 270A of the Act. She vehemently argued that the failure of the Ld. AO to initiate the penalty proceedings cannot make the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, inviting revisionary proceedings under section 263 of the Act by the Ld.Pr.CIT. She further submitted that

Veera Venkata Ramakrishna Mohan Rao Koduri, East Godhavari vs. ACIT, Cirlce - 1, Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 291/VIZ/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita Nos. 290 & 291/Viz/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20) Veera Venkata Ramakrishna V. Acit – Circle – 1 Mohana Rao Koduri Ayakkar Bhawan Flat No. 201, Sri Towers Nh-16 Veerabadhrapuram Venkateswara Nagar Rajahmundry – 533105 Syamalanagar Andhra Pradesh East Godavari District - 533103 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpk0888C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आईटीए. नं. / Ita Nos. 293 & 294/Viz/2025 निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20) Satya Venkata Krishna Ravi V. Acit – Circle – 1 Prasad Koduri Ayakkar Bhawan 81-10-3/6, Venkateswaranagar Veerabadhrapuram Near Ima Halla, Danavaipeta Rajahmundry – 533105 East Godavari District Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpk0889D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Smt Hemalatha K, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit(Dr)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153CSection 263Section 270A

Veera Venkata Ramakrishna Mohana Rao Koduri, Rajahmundry vs. ACIT, Circle - 1, Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 290/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153CSection 263Section 270A

Bhavna Impex, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr.CIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 574/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri D. K. Parikh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148ASection 263

relied upon. In fact, again he has not commented on the evidences filed by the assessee before him while holding the assessment order erroneous causing prejudice to the revenue. 8. Summarizing our findings, it is clear that the Ld. PCIT has passed the impugned order in gross violation

Shhlok Triton Associates, Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is allowed

ITA 638/SRT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.638/Srt/2024 Assessment Year:(2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) M/S Shhlok Triton Associates, Vs. Pcit – 1, F.P. No. 388, Paikee Udhna Surat Darwaja, Ring Road, Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aclfs6819A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 18/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/08/2025

Section 143(3)Section 253(3)Section 263

passed the order without considering the facts and evidences, without application of mind and correct provisions of the Act, which made the assessment order erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. There was also short levy of tax of Rs.54,07,500/- on addition of Rs.70

M/S Gvk Jaipur Expressway Private Limited, Telangana vs. PCIT 2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 248/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80

assessee cannot be reason enough to invoke powers under section 263, and non-mentioning of these reasons do not render the assessment order "erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue". 12. In view of the above discussions, as also bearing in mind entirety of the case we vacate ... clear from the application of Explanation 1(f) of section115JB(2) of the Act thus the error in title cannot make the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The total income as computed by ld.AO in para 7 of the assessment order and computation of deemed

Guru Kripa Associates, Bareilly vs. Pr. CIT, Bareilly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 97/LKW/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow14 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 263

order of the AO in this regard. The order passed by the ld. Pr. CIT under section 263 of the Act holding the assessment order erroneous so as to cause prejudice to the Revenue is therefore not sustainable in law and is set aside. The grounds raised by the assessee ... period. The Ld PCIT took the view that the assessing officer has not properly examined this issue and the same has rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. He accordingly, he initiated revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act. 13. We have gone through

Unique Mercantile India Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Ahmedabad - 3, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 748/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32

failed to disallow it again. That failure on the part of the AO, without any inquiry or reasoning, clearly makes the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. We find no merit in the argument that because depreciation was allowed in subsequent years, it should have ... position, the AO should have disallowed the claim again in AY 2018-19. His failure to do so without any inquiry renders the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 7. Accordingly, we uphold the revisional order passed by the Principal CIT under section

Vibrant Advertising Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Ahmedabad-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the order passed under section 263 of the Act by the Principal CIT is quashed

ITA 1164/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 135Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 800Section 80G

different legal view on the interpretation of section 80G of the Act in the context of CSR contributions, it does not render the assessment order erroneous. In the present case, the AO's view allowing the deduction under section 80G of the Act cannot be said to be patently erroneous

Kkr India Advisors Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai-6, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee bearing ITA 3599/Mum/2025

ITA 3599/MUM/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 80G

above discussion, it is clear that a mere difference of opinion between the Ld. AO and the Ld. PCIT cannot render the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Considering the facts of the case in totality, we set aside the order of the Ld. PCIT

Tmt Employees Co Operative Credit Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Thane

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee bearing ITA

ITA 3591/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankartmt Employees Co-Operative Vs Pcit, Thane-1 B Wing, Ashar It Park, 6Th Floor, Credit Society Ltd, Shop No.10, Prashaskiya Road No.16Z, Wagle Industrial Bhavan, Then M P (Tmt) Estate, Thane (West)-400 604 Employees Ccs, Wagle Estate, Wagle Aagar, Mumbai-400 604 Pan: Aaeat4545J Applicant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Venugopal Nair, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

above judicial guidance, it is clear that a mere difference of opinion between the Ld. AO and the Ld. PCIT cannot render the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. We, therefore, respectfully rely on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court

Coral India Finance & Housing Limited, Mumbai vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 3, Mumbai

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

ITA 2496/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri V K Ginde, ARFor Respondent: Shri R A Dhyani, (CIT-DR)

Section 135Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)Section 80GSection 80G(2)(a)

held allowable consistently by the courts. Therefore, even on this count deduction allowed u/s 80G vis-à-vis CSR expenditure cannot make the assessment order erroneous. 10.1 Hence, both on legal ground as also on merits, appeal of the assessee has sufficient force. Therefore, respectfully following the above judicial precedents

Kodiyil Muhammed Madani, Taliparamba vs. DCIT, Centralcircle 1, Kozhikode

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 345/COCH/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

contents of the loose-sheets found during the course of search indicating the payment of perquisites to the employees, rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue and the learned PCIT rightly exercised the power of revision and, therefore, no interference is called for. 7 Meat