AI Insights
The case revolves around an appeal by Nutan Growth Fund Pvt. Ltd. against the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (PCIT), which revised the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The PCIT's revision was based on the grounds that the AO had not examined the fair market value of investments in unlisted securities, which was a part of the limited scrutiny. The Tribunal examined whether the PCIT was justified in invoking section 263, considering the detailed inquiries made by the AO during the assessment proceedings.
Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 131810 (ITAT-DELHI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
CRN Number
Duration Of Justice
1 year(s) 8 month(s) 23 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
27-02-2023
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
E
Next Hearing Date
05-12-2022
Assessment Year
2015-2016
Appeal Filed On
03-06-2021
Judgement Text
THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHIBENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI Before Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member Sh. Yogesh Kumar US, Judicial Member ITA No. 658/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Nutan Growth Fund Pvt. Ltd., L-4, Green Park Extension, New Delhi-110075 Vs Pr. CIT, New Delhi-110055 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACN0023H Assessee by : Sh. Sahil Sharma, Adv., Sh. Saurabh Nandi, Adv. & Sh. Mahesh Kumar, CA Revenue by : Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR Date of Hearing: 06.12.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 28.02.2023 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of ld. PCIT(Central)-2, Delhi dated 31.03.2021. 2. Following grounds have been raised by the assessee: “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order dated 31.03.2021 passed by the Pr.CIT Central 2, Delhi (“Ld. Pr.CIT”) u/s.263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) cancelling the order dated 28.08.2017 passed u/s. 143(3) by the ACIT, Central Circle 20, Delhi (“Ld. AO”) and directing the Ld. AO for a proposed addition u/s.56(2)(viia) of Rs. 136,62,06,725/- (subject to Rule 11UA of the I.T. Rules, 1962) is void ab intio due to want of jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed. 2. The Ld. Pr. CIT erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act by examining issues not covered by the Limited Scrutiny and directing the Ld. AO to make a ITA No. 658/Del/2021 Nutan Growth Fund Pvt. Ltd. 2 de novo assessment on issues not covered by the Limited Scrutiny and consequently the impugned order passed u/s.263 is bad in law and is liable to be set aside. 3. The Ld. Pr. CIT failed to appreciate that the Ld. AO had made detailed enquiries on the issue of “Large Increase in Investment in Unlisted Securities” and hence on the very same issue no action can be taken u/s.263 of the Act when the order u/s. 143(3) was pursuant to proper enquiry on the facts and circumstances of the case and in accordance with law and consequently the impugned order u/s.263 is bad in law and is liable to be set aside. 4. The Ld. Pr. CIT erred in law by expanding the scope of the Limited Scrutiny, which can be done only by the AO at the AO’s discretion, on the issue of “Large Increase in Investment in Unlisted Securities” to extend to verification of applicability of S.56(2)(viia) of the Act which was not contemplated in the notice of Limited Scrutiny, thereby exceeding his jurisdiction u/s.263 resulting in the order u/s.263 being ultra vires and bad in law and consequently the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5. The Ld. Pr. CIT has erred in revising the order u/s. 143(3) without appreciating that there is no error, much less prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue to warrant a revision and therefore the order passed by the Ld. Pr.CIT is ultra vires to the scope of Section 263 and consequently the impugned order passed is bad in law and is liable to be cancelled. 6. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. Pr.CIT has erred in computing the purported addition u/s. 56(2)(viia) at Rs. 136,62,06,725/- and directing the Ld. AO accordingly, contrary to facts and relevant provisions of the Act and Rules. 7. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. Pr.CIT has erred in computing the purported addition u/s. 56(2)(viia) and directing the AO, as in Ground No.6, disregarding the findings and directions of the Hon’ble ITAT vide order dated 09.08.2019 in I.T.A. No.881/DEL/2019 for AY 2015-16, that was placed on record, in the case of M/s. Raj Sheela Growth Fund Pvt. ITA No. 658/Del/2021 Nutan Growth Fund Pvt. Ltd. 3 Ltd., a sister concern, involving similar share transfer transactions.” 3. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record. 4. The Assessee is a private limited company and it filed its return of income on 28.09.2015, declaring an income of Rs. 8,940/-. The AO vide its order dated 20.08.2017 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, accepted the returned income. 5. Subsequently, the ld. PCIT Central, Delhi-2 ("PCIT") examined the records of assessment and noted that the case was selected for limited scrutiny on account of following reasons: 1. Low income and high loan advances investments 2. Share premium 3. Low incomes and high investments 4. Investments in unlisted securities. 6. The ld. PCIT noted that during the year under consideration, the Assessee had invested in equity shares of certain unlisted companies. 7. He observed that the AO during the course of assessment proceedings has not examined the issue of applicability of provisions of Section 56(2)(viia) of the Act on account of investment in unlisted equity shares during the year. The ld. PCIT observed that although the AO had examined the source of investment in such companies, however, AO has not examined the fair market value ("FMV") of investment. The ld. PCIT was therefore of the opinion that the order passed u/s 143 (3) of ITA No. 658/Del/2021 Nutan Growth Fund Pvt. Ltd. 4 the Act to be erroneous as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 8. The ld. PCIT issued a show-cause notice dated 03.02.2020 to show cause as to why the matter may not be set aside to the AO under revisionary powers granted u/s 263 of the Act. Pertinent to note that under the said notice, ld. PCIT Central 2, drew reference to the assessment order passed in the case of M/s Raj Sheela Growth Fund, a related party wherein an adjustment was made on account of deemed income u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) as it was observed that most companies in the said case were common with the companies in which the assessee had invested. Further, reference was drawn to the chart submitted in the case of Raj Sheela along with chart submitted by the assessee in relation to the purchase price and FMV of companies in which investments were made both by Raj Sheela and the assessee. 9. The asseesee vide submission dated 24.02.2020 stated that the entire premise of the ld. PCIT was based on a wrong factual premise as no share capital/share premium was received during the year from 19 companies that were stated in the said notice. As a natural collary, there was no applicability of Section 56(2)(viib) in the instant case. The assessee submitted that the workings of Rs. 135.11 crores towards alleged income escapement was not shared in the said notice. 10. Subsequently, the ld. PCIT issued another SCN dated 17.03.2020 wherein the ld PCIT modified its earlier SCN to state that the AO had not verified facts in respect of applicability of Section 56 of the Act which one of the reasons for limited ITA No. 658/Del/2021 Nutan Growth Fund Pvt. Ltd. 5 scrutiny. The ld. PCIT reproduced a chart of 26 companies in which the assessee had invested to state that income of Rs. 106.78 crores had escaped assessment during the relevant Assessment Year. In the said SCN, ld. PCIT did not draw any reference to Rajsheela assessment order and also removed the specific reference to Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. 11. In response, the assessee vide submission dated 20.03.2020 provided its detailed contentions against invocation of Section 263 in the instant case. 12. The AO was directed by the ld. PCIT to make a fresh assessment i.e. de novo consideration. Pertinent to note that contrary to the amount of Rs. 106.78 crores stated in the earlier notice, the ld. PCIT stated that income escapement was to the tune of Rs. 136.62 crores. 13. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 14. At the outset, it was argued that in the present case the pre-requisite conditions specified u/s 263 of the Act have not been satisfied and therefore the proceedings initiated u/s 263 of the Act lacks jurisdiction and are bad in law. 263 of the Act prescribes that the Ld. PCIT can revise an order passed by the AO only on the satisfaction of twin conditions namely (i) the order is erroneous and (ii) it is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. If one of them is absent, i.e. if either the order of the Revenue is erroneous but is not prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue or if it is not erroneous but is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue - recourse cannot be had to Sec. 263(1). ITA No. 658/Del/2021 Nutan Growth Fund Pvt. Ltd. 6 The error envisaged by Sec.263 is not one which depends on possibility of guesswork but it should be an actual error either of facts or of law. 15. It is further submitted that when two views are possible and the AO has taken one view with which the ld. PCIT does not agree, the order of the AO cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue unless the view taken by the AO is unsustainable in law and for the aforesaid proposition. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC). 16. It was argued that the present case was selected for limited scrutiny and was never converted into a full scrutiny. However, we find that scrutiny of share premium and investment in unlisted securities is one of the reasons for selection of the case for limited scrutiny. 17. It was argued that the ld. PCIT failed to appreciate that the AO has made due enquiries within the boundaries scrutiny before completing assessment and the ld. PCIT has not undertaken any inquiry on its own accord and the initiation of proceedings under Section 263. 18. The arguments of the ld. DR in rebuttal supporting the order of the ld. PCIT is as under: “Sub: Written Submission in the above case- reg. ITA No. 658/Del/2021 Nutan Growth Fund Pvt. Ltd. 7 In this regard, it is humbly submitted that Explanation 2 has been inserted in Section 263 of I.T. Act by Finance Act 2015 w.e.f 01.06.2015 which is reproduced below: Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this section, it is hereby declared that an order passed by the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner,— (a) the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made; (b) the order is passed allowing any relief without inquiring into the claim; (c) the order has not been made in accordance with any order, direction or instruction issued by the Foard under section 119; or (d) the order has not been passed in accordance with any decision which is prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person. In the above case, it is humbly submitted that the following decision may kindly be considered with regard to validity of proceedings u/s 263 of I.T. Act: 1. Surya Jyoti Software Pvt. Ltd. Vs PCIT (I.T.A. No.2158/DEL/2017) ITAT Delhi Hon’ble ITAT Delhi held that the Pr. CIT has amply demonstrated in his impugned order that this issue was neither enquired into nor was verified by the Assessing Officer once the information and the material in hard copy and in form, of CD was made available to him. ITA No. 658/Del/2021 Nutan Growth Fund Pvt. Ltd. 8 Hence, assessment order is not only erroneous but also prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 2. CIT Vs Ashok Logani (11 taxmann.com 208, 202 Taxman 201, 347 ITR 22) Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that whether when, on facts, it was found that there was no proper consideration by Assessing Officer to issue at hand and he left many loose ends, that too in a case where huge cash was found during search most of which was surrendered by giving statement at time of search, though retracted and sought to be explained afterward, it was necessary for Assessing Officer to properly adjudicate upon that issue and assessment order should have at least reflected that he was satisfied with explanation disclosing source of cash found; and that there was a proper and valid retraction. 3. [2022] 143 taxmann.com 173 (Calcutta)- Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Mrs. Premlata Tekriwal- PCIT invoked revision on ground that once it was established that expenditure was unexplained/bogus, entire amount of bogus expenditure was to be added to income of assessee - It was noted that when Assessing Officer gave an opportunity to assessee to explain transaction, assessee did not produce any document but rather stated that 2 per cent of purported bogus purchase might be added to its income - Thus, it would mean that assessee had accepted allegations against it - Whether since it was established that expenditure was unexplained/bogus, entire amount of bogus expenditure was to be added to income of assessee - Held, yes - Whether, therefore, PCIT was fully justified in exercising revision jurisdiction under section 263 - Held, yes [Para 4| [In favour of revenue] ITA No. 658/Del/2021 Nutan Growth Fund Pvt. Ltd. 9 4. [2008] 169 Taxman 117 (Punjab & Haryana)- Mahavir Prasad vs. Income- tax Officer- Unexplained investments - Assessment year 1997-98 - Assessee had deposited a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs with a firm and source of such deposit was not verifiable from original return of assessee - In response to notice under section 148, assessee stated that he had received credits from four persons and produced evidence in that regard - Assessing Officer found that credit of Rs. 3.08 lakhs was received from two totally different persons 'S' and ’D’ and said money was advanced by assessee to said firm along with an amount of Rs. 68,000, which was deposited by him in cash - Therefore, Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 68,000 to assessee's income under section 69 - Commissioner, acting under section 263, took view that Assessing Officer had wrongly accepted that said amount was received by assessee from 'S' and 'D' because said fact was totally contrary to stand taken by assessee and evidence and material produced by assessee himself to show that said credits were received by him from four persons - Therefore, Commissioner directed Assessing Officer to add a sum of Rs. 3.08 lakhs to income of assessee in respect of credits - Tribunal confirmed order of Commissioner - Whether Tribunal was justified in its action - Held, yes 5. [2016] 69 taxmann.com 170 (SC)- Commissioner of Income-tax, Mumbai vs. Amitabh Bachchan- Section 263 does not require any specific show cause notice detailing specific grounds on which revision of assessment order is tentatively being proposed affecting initiation of exercise in absence thereof or to require commissioner to confine himself to terms of notice and foreclosing consideration of any other issue or question of fact; Commissioner is free to exercise his jurisdiction on consideration of all relevant facts, provided an opportunity of hearing is afforded to ITA No. 658/Del/2021 Nutan Growth Fund Pvt. Ltd. 10 assessee to contest facts on basis of which he had exercised revisional jurisdiction” Sd/- (Sarita Kumari) Commissioner of Income Tax(DR) E Bench, ITAT, New Delhi. 19. We have gone through the various infirmities viz., • That in the initial SCN dated 03.02.2020, ld. PCIT had placed reliance on the assessment order in the case of Rajsheela to hold that income had escaped assessment amounting to Rs. 135.11 Cr. under Section 56(2)(viib) on account of deemed dividend; • That subsequently, ld. PCIT shifted its stand reflecting a mere change of opinion by issuing another SCN dated 17.03.2020 Rs. 106.78 crores had escaped assessment during the relevant AY. Pertinent to note that in the said SCN, ld. PCIT did not draw any reference to Rajsheela assessment order and also removed the specific reference to Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act and stated the generic and boarder provision of Section 56. • Subsequently, in the order passed u/s 263, ld. PCIT states that the fate of the assessment in the case of Rajsheela was immaterial. The ld. PCIT categorically records and accepts that the details in respect of FMV were duly furnished during the course of assessment proceedings. Pertinent to note that contrary to the amount of Rs. 106.78 crores stated in the earlier notice (supra), PCIT states an arbitrary income escapement to the tune of Rs. 136.62 crores in the said order. ITA No. 658/Del/2021 Nutan Growth Fund Pvt. Ltd. 11 • That most importantly the ld. PCIT failed to appreciate that the AO had carried out a due inquiry within limited scrutiny parameters which reflected application of mind and hence the PCIT had no jurisdiction in passing a de novo assessment order as per settled law. 20. On the contrary to the above infirmities and lack of enquiry by the PCIT, a due enquiry was conducted by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings, reference is drawn to pages 3-4 of paper book wherein the AO vide notice dated 25.04.2017 issued u/s 142(1) of the Act put forward the following queries/examination during the assessment proceedings. The relevant excerpts reads as under: "The case has been selected under CASS for a limited scrutiny. The reasons of selection are: i) Large share premium received during the year (verify applicability of section 56(2) (viib). ii) Low income in comparison to very high investment. iii) Low income in comparison to high loans/advances/investment in shares. iv) Large increase in investment in unlisted equities during the year. Please furnish explanation regarding the above reasons of selection." 21. In response, Assessee vide submission dated 21.08.2017 (refer page 101 of Paper book) stated that in pursuance to the discussion in relation to the ongoing assessment proceedings, Assessee has submitted details of source of investment, copy of ledger account along with bank statements of the concerned parties. Furthermore, the Assessee also provided a copy of the ITA No. 658/Del/2021 Nutan Growth Fund Pvt. Ltd. 12 valuation report under Rule 11UA depicting the FMV of investments made in unlisted shares and supporting balance sheet of the relevant companies. Therefore, it is clearly evident that AO has undertaken an inquiry within the parameter of the scrutiny which involved examination of the FMV of investment in unlisted equity shares, and hence it cannot be said that there was any absence of an inquiry resulting in invocation of Section 263 in the instant matter. 22. A detailed chart in relation to date wise notices and responses which represents detailed inquiry and due application of mind by the AO is as under: Sl. No. Particulars Date of issue/sub mission Description Paper book reference 1. Notice issued u/s 142(1) 25.04.2016 Detailed questionnaire 2-4 2. Reply to notice 20.07.2017 Written submission filed to duly comply with information requested 5-100 3. Reply in response to ongoing assessment proceedings 21.08.2017 Written submission containing valuation report under Rule 11UA, chart of FMV of investments, audited accounts. 101-454 4. Assessment order passed u/s 143(3) 28.08.2017 Order sought to be revised by PCIT u/s 263 of the Act 23. Therefore, on the basis of the above notices and responses thereof, the PCIT has failed to appreciate that a due inquiry and application of mind was in fact exercised by the AO to arrive at its conclusion that no income had escaped assessment. ITA No. 658/Del/2021 Nutan Growth Fund Pvt. Ltd. 13 24. At this juncture, it is crucial to note that the PCIT in its impugned order, contrary to the above stated facts, made the observation that even when the assessee had submitted details of FMV of the shares in question, showing that there was no income arising there from. The AO had examined and accepted the same, there was no error in the Assessment Order to that extant. 25. We find that the ld. PCIT has failed to consider that Section 263 of the Act vests revisionary power in a superior officer and, therefore by the very inherent nature of such power, it does not allow for substitution of the view taken by the AO. The appreciation of the material placed on record before the AO is exclusively within the four corners of its domain and it cannot overlap with exercising revisionary powers under Section 263 of the Act, on the ground that the AO should have arrived at a different conclusion basis the material on record. 26. Reliance is being placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in PCIT vs. M/s. Brahma Centre Development Pvt. Ltd (ITA No.116 & 118/2021) dated 05.07.2021, wherein the High Court has laid down that the benchmark to be adopted whilst dealing with the issue as to whether or not an AO has carried out enquiry or verification, all that the Court is required to ascertain is whether AO applied his mind. Relevant para reads as under: "10. The standard to be adopted while dealing with the issue as to whether or not an AO has carried out an enquiry or verification, all ITA No. 658/Del/2021 Nutan Growth Fund Pvt. Ltd. 14 that the Court is required to ascertain is as to whether the AO applied his mind. 10.1. The fact that the AO has not given reasons in the assessment order is not indicative, always, of whether or not he has applied his mind. Therefore, scrutiny of the record, is necessary and while scrutinizing the record the Court has to keep in mind the difference between lack of enquiry and perceived inadequacy in enquiry. Inadequacy in conduct of enquiry cannot be the reason based on which powers under Section 263 o f the Act can be invoked to interdict an assessment order." 27. Further reliance is placed on the decision of Delhi High Court in CIT v Sunbeam Auto Ltd 332 ITR 167, wherein the jurisdictional Delhi High Court held as under: "12. We have considered the rival submissions of the counsel on the other side and have gone through the records. The first issue that arises for our consideration is about the exercise of power by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 of the Income-tax Act. As noted above, the submission of learned counsel for the revenue was that while passing the assessment order, the Assessing Officer did not consider this aspect specifically whether the expenditure in question was revenue or capital expenditure. This argument predicates on the assessment order which apparently does not give any reasons while allowing the entire expenditure as revenue expenditure. However, that by itself would not be indicative of the fact that the Assessing Officer had not applied his mind on the issue. There are judgments galore laying down the principle that the Assessing Officer in the assessment order is not required to give detailed reason in respect of each and every item of deduction, etc. Therefore, one has to see from the record as to whether there was application of mind before allowing the expenditure in question as ITA No. 658/Del/2021 Nutan Growth Fund Pvt. Ltd. 15 revenue expenditure. Learned counsel for the assessee is right in his submission that one has to keep in mind the distinction between "lack of inquiry" and ''inadequate inquiry". If there was any inquiry, even inadequate, that would not by itself, give occasion to the Commissioner to pass orders under section 263 of the Act, merely because he has different opinion in the matter. It is only in cases of "lack of inquiry", that such a course of action would be open." 28. Further, we find that the case of the Assessee is squarely covered by the coordinate bench decision in the case of Pawansuit Media Services vs. PCIT (ITA No.534/Del/2021) wherein on near identical facts, the Tribunal quashed the revisionary order u/s 263 of the Act. 29. In that case, the ld. PCIT intervened and invoked Section 263 to hold that the issue of applicability of Section 56(2)(viia) was not examined by the AO. The Tribunal following the various jurisdictional Delhi High Court decisions held that the AO within the parameter of scrutiny had undertaken a due inquiry which reflected application of mind, and hence the ld. PCIT order setting aside the assessment order was quashed. 30. The instant case of the Assessee is also akin to the decision of the Delhi Tribunal in Pushp Steel and Mining Private Ltd. vs. PCIT (ITA No.811/Del/2021) dated 22.12.2021 has followed the decision of Delhi Tribunal to quash revisionary order u/s 263 of the Act. Relevant excerpts are as under: “14. .....It is an undisputed fact that during the year under consideration assessee had made Investment in 2500 equity shares of Mukund Coalfields Pvt. Ltd. @ Rs. 10 per share. (Investment Rs. 25,000/-) and Investment in 7,70,000 equity shares of Indian Steel ITA No. 658/Del/2021 Nutan Growth Fund Pvt. Ltd. 16 & Power Pvt. Ltd. @ Rs. 10 per share (Investment Rs. 77,00,000/-). We find that to examine the issue for which the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny, notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act was issued by AO along with questionnaire and the assessee was also asked to submit the various details contained therein. The paper book filed by the assessee reveals that in response to the notice issued by AO, assessee had made submissions on various dates wherein assessee had interalia filed the details of the shares purchased, from whom the shares were purchased, copies of bank account evidencing payment to sellers, contract note for purchase note, computation of the book value of shares that were purchased. In view of the aforesaid facts we are of the view that AO had applied his mind to the information and details furnished by the assessee and after considering the information, the AO did not proceed to make any addition on account of purchase of unlisted equity shares, which according to us is a possible view. Further, before us, no material has been placed by the Revenue to demonstrate that the view taken by the AO was wholly unsustainable in law or the AO has not examined the issue which he was required to examine in a limited scrutiny matter. Further, it is a settled law that the order of the AO cannot be branded as erroneous if the Commissioner is not satisfied with the conclusion arrived by the Assessing Officer. The order can be brought within the purview of an erroneous order only if it involves an error by deviating from law or upon erroneous application of the legal principle. It is a settled law that the power of revision can be exercised only where no inquiry as required under the law is done and it is not open to enquire in cases of inadequate inquiry. In the present case, as noted above, the AO had raised various queries and the same were also replied by the Assessee. In such a situation it cannot be said that there was lack of inquiry from the end of AO.” ITA No. 658/Del/2021 Nutan Growth Fund Pvt. Ltd. 17 31. After going through the entire factum of the examination of the pertinent issues and after examining the Explanation 2 to Section 263, submission of the ld. DR, ratio given by the ld. PCIT to treat the Assessment Order as erroneous so far it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue in the present case is concerned, we are of the view that the revisionary powers so conferred cannot be exercised to invalidate the action of AO and the Ld. PCIT was not justified in invoking the provisions of Section 263 of the Act to set aside the assessment order passed by AO u/s 143(3) of the Act. Ergo, the order of ld. PCIT passed u/s 263 is hereby quashed. 32. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 28/02/2023. Sd/- Sd/- (Yogesh Kumar US) (Dr. B. R. R. Kumar) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 28/02/2023 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
Other Referred Cases
Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, Surya Jyoti Software Pvt. Ltd. Vs PCIT, CIT Vs Ashok Logani, Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Mrs. Premlata Tekriwal, Mahavir Prasad vs. Income-tax Officer, Commissioner of Income-tax, Mumbai vs. Amitabh Bachchan, PCIT vs. M/s. Brahma Centre Development Pvt. Ltd, Pawansuit Media Services vs. PCIT, Pushp Steel and Mining Private Ltd. vs. PCIT
Laws Referred To
Income Tax Act, 1961
Guide to Charitable Trusts: Formation, Benefits, and Compliance
₹0
Master The Pitch-Deck Game
₹0
1:1 Consultation on Business Valuations
₹1
Assignment of Registered Trademark
Mehul₹500
Affidavit - Application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before ITAT - Type 2
Mehul₹0
Why Meesho got ₹1,500 Crore Tax Demand ?
Team Counselvise - March 09, 2026
When Global Talent Meets GST: The Huawei Secondment Ruling explained
Team Counselvise - March 09, 2026
Budget 2026: 5 Major Personal Tax Changes Every Taxpayer Must Know
Team Counselvise - February 05, 2026