ATUL TAMULI,DHEMAJI V. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI

ITA 394/GTY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves multiple appeals by Atul Tamuli against the revisionary orders passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Guwahati, under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 2014-15 to 2020-21. The revisions were based on the grounds that the original assessments were erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, primarily due to the Assessing Officer's failure to consider a delayed DVO's valuation report before finalizing the assessments. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, agreeing with the Principal Commissioner's findings and rejecting the assessee's arguments regarding procedural errors and the validity of the DVO's report.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 848806 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Guwahati
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 02-12-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji, N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi, Thunuguntla Jagan Mohan Rao vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Garg Bros. (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT, Chirag P. Thummar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, CIT vs. Shree Durga Agencies Ltd., Malabar Industrial Co. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, T.N. Civil Supplies Corpn. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products & Camphor Works, Commissioner of Income-tax vs. S.M. Oil Extraction (P.) Ltd., Shree Krishna Colonisers vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Transfer pricing; Search and seizure; Valuation report; Assessment record; Revision of order; Value adopted by valuation officer; Prejudicial to interest
• Section: 142(1); 263; 153A

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL GUWAHATI ‘DB’ BENCH AT KOLKATA [Virtual Court] Before SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No(s). 390 to 396/GTY/2025 Assessment Year(s) 2014-15 to 2020-21 Atul Tamuli Vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Guwahati (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: ADNPT7419A Appearances: Assessee represented by : Nihar Sahu, CA. Department represented by : Santosh Kr. Karnani, Addl. CIT. Date of concluding the hearing : 26-February-2026 Date of pronouncing the order : 26-March-2026 ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: All these appeals filed by the assessee are against the common order of the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Guwahati [hereinafter referred to Ld. 'Pr. CIT'] passed u/s 263 (erroneously mentioned as section 264 in the header of the order) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AYs 2014-15 to 2020- 21 dated 29.03.2024. 1.1 The Registry has informed that all the appeals are barred by limitation by 550 days. The assessee has filed a petition along with an affidavit seeking condonation of delay and explaining the reasons as mentioned below: “I, Atul Tamuli, S/o: Late. Mohendra Nath Tamuli aged about 51. years, residing at C/O M/S TAMULY TWO WHEELERS, STATION ROAD STATION Printed from counselvise.com Page | 2 ITA No(s). 390 to 396/GTY/2025 Assessment Year(s) 2014-15 to 2020-21 Atul Tamuli. ROAD, DHEMAJI 787057, Assam, India, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under: 1. I am competent to swear this affidavit and well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the present appeal filed against the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (PCIT), Central NER, Guwahati, passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the relevant assessment years. 2. During the pendency of my appeal before the CIT(A) for the relevant assessment years, the learned PCIT invoked the provisions of Section 263 and passed revisionary orders directing the Assessing Officer to frame fresh assessments. 3. The PCIT order was served on me on 29.03.2024, and I became aware of it on 06.10.2025, while preparing for filing an appeal before ITAT against the CIT(A) order for A Y. 2019-20. The statutory period of 60 days for filing the appeal expired on 27.05.2024. Consequently, the present appeal is being filed on 02.12.2025, resulting in a delay of 556 days. 4 The delay in filing the appeal occurred due to bona fide and unavoidable circumstances beyond my control, which I explain as follows: a) At the time the PCIT’s Section 263 order was received, appeals for the same assessment years were already pending before the CIT(A). This created genuine confusion regarding the interplay of proceedings before CIT(A) and Section 263 revision, and the correct appellate remedy to protect my interests. b) The PCIT order incorrectly mentioned Section 264 in the heading, whereas the operative part referred to Section 263. This inconsistency further compounded the uncertainty about the validity of the order and the appropriate forum for appeal. Further, this created a lot of conflicts with the Accountant. I assumed that the accountant has applied 264 proceedings without my knowledge. c) Given the complexity of multiple overlapping proceedings, I sought detailed guidance from qualified chartered accountants and legal practitioners. They advised that the Section 263 order had potential legal infirmities and that its challenge needed to be filed independently before ITAT. Multiple rounds of consultations and obtaining written advice took significant time. d) Clarifying this legal position required careful consideration and professional guidance to avoid any procedural error that could prejudice my case and multiple appeal fees. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 3 ITA No(s). 390 to 396/GTY/2025 Assessment Year(s) 2014-15 to 2020-21 Atul Tamuli. 5. The delay in filing the present appeal was therefore neither intentional nor deliberate It occurred solely due to the bona fide circumstances described above, including overlapping proceedings, typographical errors in the PCIT order, multiple consultations with professionals, and careful legal analysis to safeguard my rights. 6. I sincerely submit that the delay should be condoned, as it has occurred due to genuine circumstances and not out of negligence. I further submit that if the delay is not condoned, I will suffer irreparable prejudice, and my legitimate rights to challenge the PCIT’s Section 263 order will be seriously affected.” 1.2 The assessee has relied upon the following judicial pronouncements: i) Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) ii) N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 iii) Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi (AIR 1979 SC 1666) iv) Thunuguntla Jagan Mohan Rao vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax [2020] 120 taxmann.com 427 v) Garg Bros. (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT [IT Appeal Nos. 2519 to 2521 (Kol.) of 2017, dated 18-4-2018] vi) Chirag P. Thummar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax [2024] 159 taxmann.com 1628 1.3 We have considered the petition seeking condonation of delay and after perusing the petition as well as the affidavit for condonation of delay, we are satisfied that the assessee had a reasonable and sufficient cause and was prevented from filing the instant appeals within the statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 2. Since the issues are common, all the appeals were heard together and are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. We shall take up ITA No. 390/GTY/2025 for Printed from counselvise.com Page | 4 ITA No(s). 390 to 396/GTY/2025 Assessment Year(s) 2014-15 to 2020-21 Atul Tamuli. AY 2014-15 as the lead case. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. That, the learned PCIT erred in law and on facts in mentioning the order as passed under s.264 of the Act instead of section 263, which goes to the root of the jurisdiction. The impugned order suffers from a fundamental legal defect and is liable to be quashed. 2. That, without prejudice to the above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (“PCIT”) erred in law in passing the impugned order without quoting a valid Document Identification Number (DIN), contrary to CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 dated 14.08.2019. The order issued without a DIN is invalid, non-est, and void ab initio. 3. That, without prejudice to the above, the learned PCIT grossly erred in assuming jurisdiction under s.263 of the Act when the assessment order for the relevant assessment year was already under challenge before the ld. CIT(A). It is a settled law that revision under s.263 cannot be exercised on issues which are sub-judice before the appellate authority. Hence, the impugned revision order is bad in law and void. 4(a). That, without prejudice to the above, the learned PCIT erred in law in relying upon the Valuation Report (DVO report) which is invalid as per section 142A of Income Tax Act, 1961 due to the fact that valuation officer has not submitted the report within period of six months to the AO as required under the provisions of S.142A of the Act. 4(b). That, the learned PCIT erred in invoking jurisdiction under s.263 of the Act since, under section 142A, the Assessing Officer has discretionary power to refer a property to the DVO and, having been satisfied with the assessee’s valuation and not making such a reference, the same cannot constitute a valid ground for revision. 4(c). That, the learned PCIT erred in law and on facts in invoking revisionary jurisdiction under s.263 of the Act on the grounds that the Assessing Officer did not consider the DVO’s valuation report, even though the said report was not available to the Assessing Officer within the statutory time limit for completion of assessment. 4(d). That, the AO had duly completed the assessment within limitation, and mere non-availability of a valuation report cannot render the order “erroneous” or empower the PCIT to invoke revisionary powers. The impugned order therefore exceeds jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed. 4(e). That, without prejudice to the above, the learned PCIT erred in invoking jurisdiction under s.263 of the Act solely on the basis of a valuation report, Printed from counselvise.com Page | 5 ITA No(s). 390 to 396/GTY/2025 Assessment Year(s) 2014-15 to 2020-21 Atul Tamuli. which is merely an opinion and cannot establish that the original assessment order was erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The assumption of jurisdiction is therefore invalid. 5(a). That, without prejudice to the above, the learned PCIT failed to establish that the assessment order was both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, which is a mandatory pre-condition for invoking provisions of section 263 of the Act as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. and subsequent judgments. The impugned order is therefore illegal, arbitrary, and deserves to be quashed. 5(b). That, without prejudice to the above, the learned PCIT erred in directing fresh examination without demonstrating how the Assessing Officer’s inquiry was inadequate or incorrect. It is settled law that lack of “adequate inquiry” cannot be a ground for invoking section 263 unless complete lack of inquiry is established. 6(a). That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. PCIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under s.263 of the Act to revise the assessment order passed under S.153A read with section 143(3), without appreciating that the said assessment had already been subjected to mandatory statutory approval of the Joint/Additional Commissioner of Income Tax under section 153D of the Act. 6(b). That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned order is void ab initio since the assessment order, upon receipt of approval under S.153D of the Act, attains the character of a composite order merged with the satisfaction of the superior authority; hence, the Ld. PCIT could not have branded such approved assessment as “erroneous” without first revising or setting aside the approval granted under S.153D of the Act, which has not been done. 6(c). That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. PCIT erred in alleging lack of enquiry or non-application of mind by the AO, without appreciating that section 153D requires the superior authority to examine the draft assessment order and the enquiries made before granting approval, such approval therefore constitutes an express affirmation that the enquiries conducted were adequate and the view taken was legally permissible. 6(d). That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. PCIT erred in attempting to substitute his own opinion over that of the Joint/Additional Commissioner who granted the approval under section 153D of the Act. The Ld. PCIT cannot sit in judgment over the satisfaction recorded by another Commissioner-rank officer (or superior authority to the AO) under the guise of revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263, especially when the approval under Section 153D remains valid and subsisting. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 6 ITA No(s). 390 to 396/GTY/2025 Assessment Year(s) 2014-15 to 2020-21 Atul Tamuli. 6(e). That, the impugned order deserves to be quashed in view of the binding precedents, inter alia, of the Hon’ble ITAT Pune in the case of Ramamoorthy Vasudevan v. PCIT and the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in PCIT v. Prakhar Developers, wherein it has been held that jurisdiction under section 263 cannot be exercised in respect of assessments framed after approval granted under section 153D of the Act. 7. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, or withdraw any of the above grounds at the time of hearing.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, Shri Atul Tamuli is a teacher of Borajan Kachari L P School, Lakhipathar, a Government school at Dhemaji. Besides this, he also has income from business, house property and income from other sources and is also the proprietor of the concerns namely 1. M/s Tamuli Two Wheeler, Dhemaji, 2. M/s Tamuli Two Wheeler Service Centre, Dhemaji and 3. M/s Diamond Bar and Restaurant, Dhemaji. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') also noted that the assessee was involved in money lending business to public at exorbitantly high interest rate and the transactions/turnover/interest income arising out of the money lending business was not disclosed in the income tax return. A search and seizure operation under the provision of section 132(1) of the Act was conducted on 05.04.2019 at the residential premise of the assessee and at the office premises of his business concerns. The assessee had filed his original return of income for AY 2014-15 on 30.11.2014 disclosing total income of ₹5,49,840/-. Consequent to the search conducted upon the assessee on 05.04.2019, a notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued to the assessee for AYs 2014- 15 to 2019-20 and another notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee calling for the return of income for AY 2020-21, being the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search was conducted. The assessee did not file the return of income in response to Printed from counselvise.com Page | 7 ITA No(s). 390 to 396/GTY/2025 Assessment Year(s) 2014-15 to 2020-21 Atul Tamuli. the notices u/s 153A of the Act. Subsequently, the assessee did not comply with the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act issued calling for the details. The Ld. AO added a sum of ₹3,14,824/- received as salary to the returned income of the assessee and also a sum of ₹16,941/- being 8% of ₹2,06,138/- as the aggregate deposits in all the undisclosed bank accounts and assessed the total income of the assessee u/s 153A r.w.s. 144 of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Subsequently, during the pendency of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. Pr. CIT examined the record and vide order dated 29.03.2024 held the assessment orders for all these years to be erroneous in so far as they were prejudicial to the interests of the revenue and set aside all the assessment orders and further directed the Ld. AO to pass fresh assessment orders after providing proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. Pr. CIT, the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. It was stated that the Ld. Pr. CIT initiated the revision proceedings even though the assessee had appeared before the Ld. CIT(A) prior to initiation of the revision proceedings. In response to the revision proceedings, the assessee appeared before the Ld. Pr. CIT. It was stated that the order is titled as ‘ORDER U/S 264 OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961’ and as there was no demand, the Counsel had initially advised to appeal against the consequential proceedings but as no order was passed by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO'), the assessee has now filed the appeal against the order of the Ld. Pr. CIT. When enquired by the Bench whether the Ld. CIT(A) has passed Printed from counselvise.com Page | 8 ITA No(s). 390 to 396/GTY/2025 Assessment Year(s) 2014-15 to 2020-21 Atul Tamuli. any order, the Ld. AR stated that no order of the Ld. CIT(A) had been passed at time of passing of the order of the Ld. Pr. CIT. Subsequent to the hearing of the appeal before the Tribunal, the assessee also filed supplementary written submission in support of the arguments relating to various grounds of appeal. It was stated that the reference to the DVO was made on 28.09.2021 in respect of several properties and the delayed report of the DVO could not be admitted for revision proceedings. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. Pr. CIT and requested that the same may be upheld as the Ld. AO had made reference to the DVO and without waiting for the DVO’s report, the assessment order was passed in all the years and therefore, the revision proceedings were rightly carried out. 6. We have considered the submissions made, gone through the facts of the case and perused the record and the order of the Ld. PCIT. Ground no. 1 is regarding the order being u/s 264 of the Act instead of u/s 263 of the Act and therefore, the same being liable to be quashed. We note that except in the header on page 1 of the impugned order, where section 264 is erroneously mentioned and is only a typographical error, in the rest of the order, the Ld. Pr. CIT has mentioned section 263 and therefore, in view of the provisions of section 292B of the Act, as the order is in substance and effect in conformity with and according to the intent and purpose of section 263 of the Act, the same is held to be an order u/s 263 of the Act. Thus, Ground No. 1 of the appeal is dismissed. 7. As regards Ground No. 2, no serious arguments were advanced in the course of the appeal before us. Hence, this ground of appeal is dismissed. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 9 ITA No(s). 390 to 396/GTY/2025 Assessment Year(s) 2014-15 to 2020-21 Atul Tamuli. 8. Ground no. 3 challenges the jurisdiction of the Ld. PCIT in assuming jurisdiction when the order for the relevant assessment year was already under challenge before the Ld. CIT(A). In this respect, we have examined the provisions of clause (c) of Explanation 1 below sub- section (1) of section 263 of the Act in which it is stated that the powers of the Principal Commissioner under this sub-section shall extend and shall be deemed always to have extended to such matters as had not been considered and decided in such appeals. The clause (c) of Explanation 1 of section 263 of the Act is as under: “(c) where any order referred to in this sub-section and passed by the Assessing Officer or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be, had been the subject matter of any appeal filed on or before or after the 1st day of June, 1988, the powers of the Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner under this sub-section shall extend and shall be deemed always to have extended to such matters as had not been considered and decided in such appeal.” 8.1 It has also been held in the case of CIT vs. Shree Durga Agencies Ltd. [1999] 239 ITR 484 (Calcutta) when Commissioner (Appeals) had not considered and decided issues relating to service charges and vehicle hire charges, Commissioner was justified in invoking provisions of section 263 to revise order of ITO on those issues and, therefore, Tribunal was not right in cancelling order of Commissioner passed under section 263 of the Act. Since the Ld. CIT(A) had not passed any order nor the issue of valuation of the two properties referred to the DVO and for which his report was received, on which the revision was carried out was subject matter of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. PCIT was justified in invoking his powers u/s 263 of the Act and this ground of appeal is dismissed. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 10 ITA No(s). 390 to 396/GTY/2025 Assessment Year(s) 2014-15 to 2020-21 Atul Tamuli. 9. Ground no. 4 having 5 sub-grounds relates to the DVO’s report which is stated to be invalid as it was not submitted within six months, nor was it available to the Ld. AO within the statutory time limit and could not be used for the purpose of revision proceedings as it was a mere opinion. In this respect we note that the Ld. AO had made a reference to the DVO on 20.09.2021 and while the limitation was subsisting up to 31.03.2022 and the limitation was also liable to be extended in view of clause (v) of Explanation 1 below sub-section (9) to section 153 of the Act which specifies that the period commencing from the date on which the Ld. AO makes a reference to the Valuation Officer under sub-section (1) of section 142A of the Act and ending with the date on which the report of the Valuation Officer is received by the Assessing Officer is to be excluded, yet the assessment order was passed in a hurry without waiting for the DVO’s report. The assessee contends that the report was required to be received within six months and as the same was not received within six months, as per sub-section (6) of section 142A of the Act, it could not be used by the Ld. AO and, therefore, the assessment order was passed on 28.09.2021 without waiting for the DVO’s report. The Ld. AR stated that the Ld. AO had sought the valuation report from the Valuation Officer and the same fact is mentioned at page 22 of the order of the Ld. Pr. CIT and the delay in sending the report by the DVO could not justify the revision proceedings. However, we note that the Ld. Pr. CIT has held that the order of the Ld. AO as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the assessee as it was passed without waiting for the report of the DVO and considering the same. The assessee has also filed the supplementary submission which is extracted as under: Printed from counselvise.com Page | 11 ITA No(s). 390 to 396/GTY/2025 Assessment Year(s) 2014-15 to 2020-21 Atul Tamuli. “1. No Addition Permissible in Absence of Incriminating Material - AO's Conscious Decision During hearing, it was submitted that the assessment in the present case was framed under section 153A of the Act and no incriminating material was found during the course of search relating to the issue which forms the basis of revision under section 263. It was further submitted that though a reference was made to the DVO, the Assessing Officer consciously did not wait to incorporate the valuation report in the assessment order as no addition could legally be made in respect of a concluded/unabated assessment in absence of incriminating material. In support of this proposition, reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in PCTT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. 1.4. (2923) 454 ITR 212 (SO. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that in respect of completed assessments, no addition can be made under section 153A in absence of incriminating material found during the course of search. Thus, the action of the Assessing Officer in not disturbing the completed assessment was in consonance with the binding law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The exercise of revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 cannot be invoked merely because the learned PCTT holds a different view, particularly when the view adopted by the AO is in accordance with law. A copy of the said judgment is respectfully submitted for ready reference and record. 2. Primary Issue- DVO Report is Time-Barred and Cannot Form Basis of Section 263 The principal submission advanced during hearing was that the DVO report itself is statutorily time-barred under section 142A(6) of the Act. In the present case, reference to the DVO was made on 20.09.2021. As per section 142A(6), the Valuation Officer is required to submit the report within six months from the end of the month in which reference is made. The reports were furnished only in November 2022, which is far beyond the statutory time limit prescribed. During the course of the hearing, it was submitted that a report furnished beyond the period mandated by statute is contrary to the legislative mandate and cannot be treated as valid material. Such a report cannot enlarge or indirectly extend the time limit prescribed for completing the assessment. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 12 ITA No(s). 390 to 396/GTY/2025 Assessment Year(s) 2014-15 to 2020-21 Atul Tamuli. Further, a legally invalid and time-barred report cannot constitute \"record\" for the purpose of invoking section 263. During the course of hearing, the undersigned had specifically submitted that there are judicial precedents in favour of the appellant on this issue, however, the exact citation could not be recalled at that moment. It is now submitted that the relevant judgment already forms part of the Case Law Compilation filed before this Hon'ble Bench on 25.02.2026 through email (hard copy of which is dispatched). The decision relied upon is Shree Krishna Colonisers vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax [2024] 159 taxmann.com 247 (Raipur ITAT) and the same is placed at serial no.13 of the case law compilation (page no. 133 to 144). However, for a ready reference a copy of the aforesaid judgment is submitted herewith. Your Honours, in the said decision, the Hon'ble Tribunal has held that where the DVO report is furnished beyond the statutory time limit prescribed under section 142A, the same is against the mandate of law and revisionary proceedings initiated under section 263 based upon such report are illegal and unsustainable. The facts of the present case are squarely covered by the aforesaid decision. 3. Conclusion In view of the above: No addition could have been made in absence of incriminating material. The DVO report is time-barred and legally non-est. An invalid and time-barred report cannot form the basis for assumption of jurisdiction under section 263.” 10. We have considered the submissions made. As regards the reference to the DVO, the same was made by the Ld. AO but without waiting for the DVO’s report, he passed the assessment order even though the limitation was not expiring and, therefore, to this extent the observation of the Ld. Pr. CIT that the order is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue is correct as the Ld. AO could have waited for the DVO’s report before finalizing the assessment. The primary issue is that the assessment order was erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue as the Ld. AO had himself Printed from counselvise.com Page | 13 ITA No(s). 390 to 396/GTY/2025 Assessment Year(s) 2014-15 to 2020-21 Atul Tamuli. referred the matter to DVO, concluded the assessment without waiting for and considering the report of the DVO when the limitation was available. Thus, to this extent, the order of the Ld. AO is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Act mandates the DVO to send the report within a specified time but the limitation for making the assessment commences from the date of receipt of the DVO’s report. Further, it has been held in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products & Camphor Works [1998] 96 Taxman 1 (SC)[02-12-1997] that the word 'record' used in section 263(1) would mean records as it stands at time of examination by Commissioner but not as it stands at time of order passed by Assessing Officer and even prior to 1989 amendment material which had already come on record though subsequently to making of assessment could be taken into consideration by Commissioner. Therefore, the Commissioner, in instance, was justified in invoking section 263 on basis of valuation report submitted by DVO subsequent to the assessment order. Further, in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. S.M. Oil Extraction (P.) Ltd. [1992] 61 Taxman 205 (Calcutta), It has been held that where in a case where any proceeding was initiated in course of assessment proceeding having a relevant and material bearing on assessment to be made and result of such proceeding was not available with ITO before completion of assessment, but result came subsequently, revising authority was entitled to look into such material as it formed part of assessment records of that particular A.Y. It has further been held that the assessment made without considering valuation report for which reference had already been made to Valuation Officer in course of assessment, was not proper assessment and such assessment was erroneous insofar as it was Printed from counselvise.com Page | 14 ITA No(s). 390 to 396/GTY/2025 Assessment Year(s) 2014-15 to 2020-21 Atul Tamuli. prejudicial to interests of revenue. Moreover, all these issues have been addressed by the Ld. PCIT in his order and therefore, we find no reason to interfere with his findings in this regard. Thus, Ground no. 4 and all the other sub-grounds are dismissed. 11. Ground no. 5 and its sub-grounds are dismissed because in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [2000] 109 Taxman 66 (SC)[10-02-2000] relied upon by the assessee, it is stated that if due to an erroneous order of ITO, revenue is losing tax lawfully payable by a person, it will certainly be prejudicial to interests of revenue. 12. Ground no. 6 and all its sub-grounds are dismissed for the reason that the decisions relied upon are distinguishable on facts as in the case of the assessee, the approval was granted by an Officer who is lower in rank than the revisionary authority. Further, in the case of T.N. Civil Supplies Corpn. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [2003] 129 Taxman 69 (SC)[16-01-2003] it has been held that the phrase 'order passed by the Income-tax Officer' in section 263 does not exclude orders passed by ITO on directions of superior authority either under section 144A or 144B. Applying the same rationale, we hold that the approval of the Jt./Addl. CIT to an order does not debar the Ld. PCIT from exercising his revisionary powers under section 263, if the facts so warrant. 13. Ground No. 7 is general in nature and does not require any separate adjudication. 14. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. 390/GTY/2025 for A.Y. 2014-15 is dismissed. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 15 ITA No(s). 390 to 396/GTY/2025 Assessment Year(s) 2014-15 to 2020-21 Atul Tamuli. 15. Since the facts in the appeals in ITA Nos. 391 to 396/GTY/2025 for AYs 2015-16 to 2020-21 are identical, our findings in AY 2014-15 shall mutatis mutandis also apply in the appeals for AYs 2015-16 to 2020-21. The grounds taken by the assessee in all these appeals are dismissed. 16. In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 26th March, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- [Sonjoy Sarma] [Rakesh Mishra] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 26.03.2026 Bidhan (Sr. P.S.) Printed from counselvise.com Page | 16 ITA No(s). 390 to 396/GTY/2025 Assessment Year(s) 2014-15 to 2020-21 Atul Tamuli. Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Atul Tamuli, C/o. M/s. Tamuly Two Wheelers, Station Road, Dhemaji, Dhemaji, Assam, 787057. 2. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Guwahati. 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR), Guwahati Benches, Guwahati. 6. Guard File. //True copy // By order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Kolkata Benches Kolkata Printed from counselvise.com "