MR. ARPANBHAI VIRAMBHAI DESAI,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, INT.TAX.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)

revision and the orders passed by the Ld.PCIT therefore u/s 263 of the Act for the said years are not sustainable in law. 23. The orders passed by the Ld.PCIT u/s 263 of the Act for A.Y 2014-15 & 2015-16 are accordingly set aside . 24. Now taking up the challenge to the validity of the assessment framed u/s.147

MR. ARPANBHAI VIRAMBHAI DESAI,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, INT.TAX., AHMEDABAD

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)

revision and the orders passed by the Ld.PCIT therefore u/s 263 of the Act for the said years are not sustainable in law. 23. The orders passed by the Ld.PCIT u/s 263 of the Act for A.Y 2014-15 & 2015-16 are accordingly set aside . 24. Now taking up the challenge to the validity of the assessment framed u/s.147

MR. ARPANBHAI VIRAMBHAI DESAI,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are\nallowed in above terms

revised by the Ld. PCIT was void\ntherefore, the Ld.PCIT could not have exercised any revisionary\njurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act on such invalid order which had no\nexistence in the eyes of law. That therefore the orders passed\nu/s.263 of the Act for the said two years also needed to be set\naside. Arguments were made before

M/S. GREENSTONE AGRO PRODUCT & INFASTRUCTURE (P) LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE P. CIT (CENTRAL), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 134 To 139/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-10 To 2014-15 M/S. Greenstone Agro Product & P.C.I.T.(Central), Infrastructure(P) Ltd., Vs. Ahmedabad. D-2, New Garden Flat, Near Sbi, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380006. Pan: Aaccg2751P

u/s 263 seeking to revise the original assessment order is off shoot of the primary proceedings and therefore, these may be termed as 'collateral proceedings' in the legal framework. The issue that arises here is whether any illegality/invalidity in the order passed in the 'primary proceedings' can be set up in the 'collateral proceedings' and if yes, then of what

OVEZ ARIFBHAI LAKHANI,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Benches, Has Arisen From The Revisionary Order Dated 12.03.2024 Passed By Ld. Principal

263 dated 14th Feb, 2024 was issued by the ld. PCIT to the assessee requiring the assessee to show cause as to why the reassessment order u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 30th March, 2022 , should not be revised

M/S GREENWELL ORCHARDS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR.CIT-3 , AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

revise u/s. 263 by the PCIT. We have reproduced the appellate order of the Commissioner [Appeals] at paragraph 10.6 of this order. The reassessment

VINOD NARAYAN JOSHI,VADODARA vs. THE PR. CIT,-1, VADODARA

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 230 /Ahd/2021 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 44/Ahd/2022 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Vinod Narayan Joshi, The Principal Af-6, Utopian Corner, Commissioner Of बिाम Nr. Green Wood Bunglows, Income Tax, Vs. New Alkapuri, Vadodara-1, Vadodara-390021. Vadodara.

reassessment proceedings should be dropped, and any revision u/s 263 is unsustainable. 8.1 In case of A.Y. 2012-13 the AR stated

VINOD NARAYAN JOSHI,VADODARA vs. THE PR. CIT,-1, VADODARA

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 230 /Ahd/2021 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 44/Ahd/2022 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Vinod Narayan Joshi, The Principal Af-6, Utopian Corner, Commissioner Of बिाम Nr. Green Wood Bunglows, Income Tax, Vs. New Alkapuri, Vadodara-1, Vadodara-390021. Vadodara.

reassessment proceedings should be dropped, and any revision u/s 263 is unsustainable. 8.1 In case of A.Y. 2012-13 the AR stated

SHRI VIJAY D. PATEL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE CIT-7,, AHMEDABAD

reassessment proceedings,u/s. 147 of the Act.The assessee had failed to file any return originally, but on initiation of re-assessment proceedings, return was filed declaring income of Rs. 33,260,50/- under the head income from other sources. The same was accepted by the AO. Subsequently on perusal of records, the ld. PCIT noted the following errors therein

MAHAVEER SINGH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

reassessment order, therefore the Revision proceedings is barred u/s. 263(1) of the Act. Further the reply of the assessee

GUJARAT TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY,,AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

In the result, the above ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. 4. The learned CIT(E) erred in fact and in law in invoking revision power u/s 263

JATINKUMAR PATEL,CHHATRAL KALOL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD 1, MEHSANA, MEHSANA

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the above terms

Bench: Dr. B.R.R Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

u/s 263 as well as consequential orders passed subsequent to revision proceeding are Null and VOID and deserves to be quashed and set aside. The same please be held accordingly. 5. The order passed by the learned CIT (Appeals) is bad in law and contrary to the provisions of law and facts. It is submitted that the same be held

SHAMA AJAY PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE CIT(IT & TP), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shama Ajay Patel, Vs. 2, Chandroday Society, The Cit(It & Tp), Opp. Golden Triangle, Sp Ahmedabad Stadium Road, Navjivan Post, Ahmedabad-380014 Pan : Alxpp 5273 E अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Sunil Talati, Ar Revenue By : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (It & Tp), Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. "Cit(It & Tp)" For Short] Dated 08.02.2023, In Exercise Of His Revisionary Powers Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Of The Ld. Cit (It & Tp) Reads As Under:- “1. The Ld. Cit Has Erred In Passing Order U/S 263 Without Jurisdiction & Appropriate Powers Available Under The Act. It Is Submitted That The Order Passed U/S. 263 Is Bad In Law As A.O. Has Neither Committed Any Error Nor It Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. It Be Held Now.

263 of the Act as found by the ld. CIT (IT & TP). 10. Undoubtedly, the assessment order sought to be revised was passed u/s 147 of the Act on reopening the case of the assessee for the specific reason that the Assessing Officer had information regarding the dubious dealing in shares of M/s. Kushal Limited. Clearly, the scope of reassessment

LALITABEN DIPAKBHAI MODH,SURAT vs. PCIT-3, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

revise the reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer. 6. In response, the assessee filed detailed reply as follows: “2 Assessee didn't file the return of income u/s 139(1) as her income was not taxable. Assessee filed the return of income on 28.04.2021 showing total income of Rs. 99,520/- by showing the income u/s. 44AD

HIRENKUMAR LAVJIBHAI KANANI,AHMEDABAD vs. PCIT, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

revision. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ganpat Ram Bishnoi, 296ITR 292 (Raj.) wherein at para 11 of the Hon'ble Court held as under: "Jurisdiction under section 263 cannot be invoked for making short enquiries or to go into the process of assessment again and again merely

ALPS LIESURE HOLIDAY PVT. LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA

Bench: Us. We Have Noted That Despite

reassessment proceedings. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Principal CIT erred in cancelling the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer on 14.03.16 u/s.143 (3) r.w.s. 147 of the I.T. Act and directing the Assessing Officer to frame assessment afresh u/s 263 of the IT Act.” 6. We have heard

SHAH JITENDRAKUMAR MAFATLAL HUF,ELLISBRIDGE, AHMEDABAD vs. PCIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

revision under section 263 of the Act as held by Hon'ble ITAT Ahmedabad in case of Jignesh Shah vs Pr. CIT (ITA No 149/Ahd/2021). On this count also, the order u/s 263 of the Act is illegal and unjust and be set aside in the interest of justice. 6. Without prejudice to the above

M R PATEL AND SONS,SOUTH TOWER,AMBLI BOPAL ROAD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, AAYAKAR BHAWAN (VEJALPUR),NR SACHIN TOWER,ANANDNAGAR PRAHLADNAGAR ROAD,AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

reassessment order is not erroneous and hence Ld PCIT was not justified in invoking revisionary jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act and requested to quash the same. 7. Per contra Ld CIT DR Shri V. Nandhakumar appearing for the Revenue supported the order passed by the PCIT and requested to uphold the revision