← All Phrases

“finality of assessment”

MiscellaneousDoctrine of MergerDoctrine of Merger40 judgments

The decision most relied on for finality of assessment is Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. ITO (106 ITR 1), cited in 486 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on finality of assessment

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.

CIT v. Murli Agro Products Ltd.
49 Taxmann.com 172 · 2014 · High Court
331
citing judgments

Proceedings under Section 153A are initiated only if assessment/reassessment proceedings are pending on the date of search/requisition. Already finalized assessments for the years covered under Section 153A do not abate.

CIT v. Tasgaon Taluka S.S.K. Ltd.
103 Taxmann.com 57 · 2019 · Supreme Court
306
citing judgments

The Supreme Court holds that the issue of payment of excessive price on purchase of sugarcane by assesses is no longer res integra. The court elaborately dealt with this issue.

CIT v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad
72 ITR 194 · 1969 · Supreme Court
272
citing judgments

If there is an unexplained cash credit, the Assessing Officer can treat it as the assessee's income, even when the income is finalized on an estimation basis, without proving its specific source. The onus then shifts to the assessee to prove that the income represented by the cash credit has already been taxed.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Roca Bathroom Products (P) ltd.
445 ITR 537 · 2022 · High Court
269
citing judgments

The time limit for the Assessing Officer to pass a final assessment order under Section 144C(13) following directions from the Dispute Resolution Panel is determined by the specific provisions of Section 153, particularly Section 153(2A).

Lalji Haridas v. ITO
43 ITR 387 · 1961 · Supreme Court
238
citing judgments

When an assessing authority is uncertain about the true ownership of funds or in whose hands income should be assessed, it can frame a protective assessment to safeguard the Revenue's interest. Such protective assessments remain valid until the substantive assessment is finalized.

CIT v. G.M. Knitting Industries (P.) Ltd.
376 ITR 456 · 2015 · Supreme Court
221
citing judgments

The requirement to file a certificate or form (e.g., Form 10CCB, 10-IC) along with the return of income for claiming a deduction (e.g., under sections 80-IB, 115BAA) is directory regarding its timing. Such a deduction is allowable if the requisite form is filed before the final order of assessment, as procedural requirements should not override substantive benefits.

Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. ITO
191 ITR 662 · 1991 · Supreme Court
200
citing judgments

For the initiation of reassessment proceedings under section 147(a), it is essential to have 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment, based on relevant material. The AO's subjective satisfaction and the final outcome of the proceedings are not relevant at the initiation stage.

Judgments citing finality of assessment

M/S. Bakshi Security and Personnel Services P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 12(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 8004/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S. Bakshi Security & Personnel Income Tax Officer– 12(1)(1), Services P. Ltd., Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Unit No.234/235, Mumbai Benches, 101 Maharishi New Sonal Link Industrial Estate, Vs. Karve Marg, Buildg 02, Link Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Malad West, Mumbai- 400064 Pan: Aaacb3456A (Appellant) : (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Haresh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhari, Sr. AR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Services P. Ltd. enforceable/binding under the law as it is finality of the assessment, so effectively the intimation u/s. 143(1) is not finality of assessment. (3) The learned CIT(A) In other words the learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that subsequent scrutiny assessment order

Mihijam Educational Trust, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 30(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2074/KOL/2025[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jan 2026AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

delay as condonation in such cases would set a precedent that encourages circumvention of statutory time limit which can significantly prejudice the finality of assessments. 6. We have considered the submissions made, gone through the facts of the case and perused the record and the order

Prime Products Limited, Kanpur vs. D.C.I.T. Circle 2(1)(1), Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 514/LKW/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2013-14 M/S Prime Products Ltd., 87/8, Kalpi Vs. The Dy. Cit, Road, Kanpur Circle-2(1)(1), Kanpur Pan: Aaacp8239K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Ashish Jaiswal, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.01.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac In Confirming The Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Levied By The Ld. Assessing Officer On 23.01.2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That On The Facts & In Law, The Order Passed By Ld. Cit (Appeals), Nfac U/S 250 Of The Act Is Bad In Law. 2 That On The Facts & In Law, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac Has Erred In Upholding Action Of Learned Ao In Levying Penalty Of Rs. 94,000/- Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 3 That On The Facts & In Law, The Notice Issued For Levy Of Penalty Under Section 274 R.W.S 271(1)(C) Dated 14/02/2020 Is Vague & Defective Since, It Does Not Specify The Limb Under Which Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Was Initiated. 4 That On The Facts & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac Has Erred In Not Appreciating That The Assessee Had Offered An Explanation. The Penalty Proceedings & The Consequent Order Are Invalid & Void Ab Initio As The Same Were Initiated & Levied Solely On The Basis Of An Affidavit Without Independent Evidence Of Concealment.

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Jaiswal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69

BASED ON SEIZED DOCUMENTS IS ITSELF DISPUTED AND UNDER CHALLENGE, AND NO PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1) (C) SHOULD HAVE BEEN LEVIED UNTIL FINALITY OF ASSESSMENT ON SUCH ADDITION. 7 THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) NFAC HAS FAILED TO GIVE PROPER CONSIDERATION TO THE EXPLANATION AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS FURNISHED

DCIT CC-8(2), Mumbai vs. Rakesh S Kathotia, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4295/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 250

assessment/reassessments already became final for those assessment years which are covered under section 153A of the Act; 1. once the assessment has attained finality, the assessing officer while passing independent order under section 153A/143(3) of the Act could not have disturbed the assessment/reassessment order, which has earlier attained finality ... Rakesh Kothotia, Mumbai. officer could not disturb the assessment order which has attained finality, as the assessee has the right to have the finality of assessment and Department cannot simply keep on doing re-assessment, litigations without sufficient checks and balances, and one should not also be allowed to review

Hiren Ashokkumar Bardoliya, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(2)(2), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 27/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.27/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 (Hybrid Hearing) Hiren Ashokkumar Bardoliya Income Tax Officer Ward-2(2)(2), बनाम/ Flat No.L/801, Rameshwaram Surat, Room No. 625, 6Th Floor, Vs. Green Opp. D-Mart, Bamroli, Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Althan Road, Surat- 395 007 Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Apxpb 4857 J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 22/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44ASection 69C

card were in respect of those purchases. In exercise of the Tribunal’s fact-finding and appraisal authority and for the purposes of finality of assessment, profit @ 15% of Rs.9,16,800/- is considered to be fair and reasonable. The AO is accordingly directed to add Rs.1

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. A & D Estates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result we upheld the decision of the Ld

ITA 1729/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

having live nexus with the formation of belief. If Ld. AO is allowed to write his conclusions in the "reason" without any material, finality of assessment to which the law attaches the great sanctity will be an eye wash. It is settled law that "reason to believe forms the foundation

Ajay Kumar Khurana, New Delhi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-20, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2666/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Vimal Kumar[Assessment Year : 2015-16] Ajay Kumar Khurana Vs Pr.Cit-20 37-B, Pocket-Iv New Delhi Mayur Vihar, Phase-I Delhi-110091 Pan-Aagpk1260N Appellant Respondent Appellant By Ms.Monika Ghai, Adv. Shri Sharad Agarwal, Adv. & Shri Dipanshu Agarwal, Adv. Respondent By Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 07.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14.05.2025

Section 147Section 263

case, the substantive issue that emerges for adjudication is whether the Pr.CIT under the umbrella of revisionary powers is entitled to upset the finality of assessment proceedings completed before the AO where the AO has allegedly committed error in passing such order without proper enquiry on the bonafides of LTCG

Hariram Hospital, Alwar vs. PCIT, Alwar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1535/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 1535/JPR/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Hariram Hospital Bye Pass Road Hariram Hospital Bhiwadi, Alwar – 310 019 (Raj) बनाम Vs. The Pr.CIT (Central) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAFFH 5746 M अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Himanshu Goyal, CA राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Da

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

fresh round of assessment on a settled matter, without any new facts or evidence, results in unwarranted harassment and delays in the finality of assessments. The business operations of the assessee are adversely impacted due to such protracted proceedings, which defeats the very purpose of efficient tax administration.Accordingly, the revision

Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Ltd, Vadodara vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 572/AHD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.572/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Gujarat State Electricity The Pr.Cit-1 Corporation Ltd. बनाम/ Vadodara – 390 015 Sardar Patel Vidhyut Bhavan V/S. Race Course Circle Vadodara – 390 007 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaacg 6864 F अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish J. Shah & Shri Jimi Patel, Ars Revenue By : Shri A.P. Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/04/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah &For Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

assessment at this stage would amount to permitting the assessee to do indirectly what it could not do directly. It would defeat the finality of assessment proceedings and undermine the statutory framework. The Tribunal’s appellate jurisdiction under section 253 of the Act, when invoked against an order passed under

Hinganghat Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha, Hinganghat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Wardha

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

ITA 569/NAG/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Feb 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Suyash RankaFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 56Section 80P

modification of returns already filed could also be entertained. Particularly when it relates to claims for exemptions. This is so because the finality of assessment would not be achieved in all such cases, until the termination of all such appellate remedies. In all such situation, it cannot be treated that

Hinganghat Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha, Hinganghat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Wardha

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

ITA 568/NAG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Suyash RankaFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 56Section 80P

modification of returns already filed could also be entertained. Particularly when it relates to claims for exemptions. This is so because the finality of assessment would not be achieved in all such cases, until the termination of all such appellate remedies. In all such situation, it cannot be treated that

Hinganghat Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha, Hinganghat vs. Income Tax Ward-1, Wardha

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

ITA 567/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Suyash RankaFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 56Section 80P

modification of returns already filed could also be entertained. Particularly when it relates to claims for exemptions. This is so because the finality of assessment would not be achieved in all such cases, until the termination of all such appellate remedies. In all such situation, it cannot be treated that

Hinganghat Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha, Hinganghat vs. Income Tax Ward-1, Wardha

ITA 566/NAG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Suyash RankaFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(1)

modification of returns already filed could also be entertained. Particularly when it relates to claims for exemptions. This is so because the finality of assessment would not be achieved in all such cases, until the termination of all such appellate remedies. In all such situation, it cannot be treated that

Dy. C.I.T. Cir-.2, Nagpur vs. Shri Govinddas Goverdhan Daga, Nagpur

ITA 517/NAG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur05 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 147Section 148Section 44A

copy of which is placed in paper book. The aforesaid objections to the reasons recorded have not been rejected by Assessing Officer before finalization of assessment framed. The non disposal of objections for notice issued u/s 148 of I.T. Act 1961 vitiates the reassessment proceedings initiated and assessment framed ... could be issued. II. That the objections raised to the reasons recorded have not been rejected by AO before finalization of assessment. III. That the AO wanted to embark upon an enquiry in respect to long terms capital gain declared in return of income. 8.1 Considering the first and third

Astt. Commisioner of Income Tax, Lucknow vs. M/S Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and Cross Objection of the assessee are dismissed, as indicated above

ITA 66/LKW/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow05 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. D. Padamahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2014-15 The Asstt. Commissioner V. M/S Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd Of Income Tax B-9, Vibhuti Khand Central Circle Ii Gomti Nagar Lucnow Lucknow Pan:Aadca5639H (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.19/Lkw/2017 [In Ita No.66/Lkw/2017] Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd V. The Asstt. Commissioner Of B-9, Vibhuti Khand Income Tax Gomti Nagar Central Circle Ii Lucknow Lucnow Pan:Aadca5639H (Cross Objector) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Neil Jain, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 194Section 80Section 80I

entertained, particularly when it ITA No.66/LKW/2017 & C.O. No.19/lkw/2017 Page 20 of 27 relates to claims for exemptions. This is so because the finality of assessment would not be achieved in all such cases, until the termination of all such appellate remedies. Under such circumstances, the Tribunal was not justified

John Distilleries Pvt Ltd., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Bangalore

ITA 983/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri T.M. Shivakumar, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra

ITA No.838 to 843/Bang/2023 M/s. Paul Resorts & Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore ITA No.844/Bang/2023 M/s. Paul Plathotathil John ITA Nos.845 to

Randheja Dudh Utpadak Sahakari Mandli Ltd., Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-3 Now Ward-1, Gandhinagar

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 649/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaasstt. Year : 2017-18 Randheja Dudh Utpadak The Ito, Ward-3 Sahakari Mandli Ltd. Vs Now Ward-1 To-Randheja Gandhinagar. Tal: Gandhinagar Pin : 382 620 Pan : Aacar 5164 K (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short Referred To As Ld.Cit(A)] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 22.11.2021 Pertaining To Asst.Year 2017-18. 2. The Registry Has Notified That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By Limitation By 581 Days. In Order To Explain The Reasons For The Impugned Delay, The Ld.Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Cit(A)/Nfac Order Was Passed Against The Assessee On 22.11.2021. However, Due To Covid-19 Pandemic Limitation For Filing Appeal Before The Court Of Law Was Extended Till February, 2022. Therefore, After Expiry Of The Limitation For Filing Of The Appeal On Feb., 2022, The Assessee Was Required To File Appeal Within 60 Days Of The Same I.E. By April, 2022. But The Assessee Could File The Appeal On

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr.DR
Section 250

modification of the returns already filed could also be entertained, particularly when it relates to claims for exemptions. This is so because the finality of assessment would not be achieved in all such cases, until the termination of all such appellate remedies. Under such circumstances, the Tribunal

Sh. Badaluram, Fauladpur, Alwar vs. ITO, Ward-Behror, Behror

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 720/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Apr 2024AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69

modification of the returns already filed could also be entertained, particularly when it relates to claims for exemptions. This is so because the finality of assessment would not be achieved in all such cases, until the termination of all such appellate remedies. Under such circumstances, the Tribunal was not justified

M/S. Abhinav Enterprises, Indore vs. PCIT-2, Indore

ITA 339/IND/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Abhinav Enterprises, Pr. Commissioner Of 85, Income-Tax-2, Ramchandra Nagar Extn., Indore. बनाम/ Aerodrum Road, Vs. Indore. (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan : Aanfa6300Q Assessee By Shri S.S.Deshpande, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 11.03.2024

Section 143(3)Section 263

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, इंदौर "ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO

Ellora Inratech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT- 3, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 258/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Mrs. Prem Lata Bansal, Sr.AdvFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

hand, the substantive issue that emerges for adjudication is whether the Pr.CIT under the umbrella of revisonary powers is entitled to upset the finality of assessment proceedings completed before the AO on the ground that AO committed error in passing assessment order without proper verification of propriety of loans received