M/S DIPIN BHAVARLAL JAIN,MUMBAI V. PCIT-20, MUMBAI

ITA 2922/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves M/s Dipin Bhavarlal Jain, the appellant, contesting a revision order passed by the PCIT under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2018-19. The PCIT had invoked section 263, claiming the original assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The appellant argued that the PCIT's order was illegal, void, and without jurisdiction, as the Assessing Officer had already made inquiries and verifications during the assessment proceedings. The Tribunal heard the arguments and found that the PCIT had not provided a reasonable opportunity to the appellant to be heard, thus violating the principles of natural justice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 471380 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANYOGITA NAGPAL
• Assessee Lawyers: DHARAN GANDHI
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Revision of order
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 2922/MUM/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/s Dipin Bhavarlal Jain, Flat No. 1222, B Wing, Vignaharta CHSL, Mahadev Palav Marg, Currey Road, Mumbai-400012. Vs. The Pr. CIT, Mumbai-20, Room No. 418, 4th floor, Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400012. PAN NO. AKAPJ 6110 C Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Dharan Gandhi Revenue by : Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 18/12/2024 Date of pronouncement : 18/02/2025 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against revision order dated 31.03.2024 passed by the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income- tax, Mumbai-20 [in short ‘the Ld. PCIT’] u/s 263 of Income-tax Act, 1961( in short the ‘Act’) for assessment year 2018-19, raising following grounds: 1. The learned Pr. CIT invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (\"the Act\"). The PCIT ought to have appreciated that the learned AO had duly made inquiries and verification during the assessment proceedings in respect of the property pur provisions of section 263 of the Act is against the provisions of law, is illegal, void and without jurisdiction; 2. The PCIT erred in passing the order u/s.263 of the Act without providing reasonable opportunity of being to the appellant. The order passed u/s.263 of the Act is against the principles of natural justice and is bad law; 3. Without prejudice to above, the PCIT ought to have appreciated that the addition cannot be made in the A.Y. 2018-19 as the appellant property in AY. 2017 the Deed of Transfer for Purchase of said property. Invoking of provision of section 263 of the Act against the Assessment Order passed u/s.143(3) for the A.Y. 2018 19 is illega 2. Before us, the Ld. No. 2 of the appeal and submitted that adequate opportunity of being heard was not violation of the principle of natural just back for deciding afresh. 3. We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant materials on record notice u/s 263 of the Act matter on 29.03.2024 and in view of non matter ex-parte on 31/03/2024 PCIT is reproduced as “4. In light of the above, the said assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) read with sections 143(3A M/s Dipin Bhavarlal Jain ITA No. 2922/MUM/2024 The learned Pr. CIT-20, Mumbai (\"the PCIT\") erred in invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (\"the Act\"). The PCIT ought to have appreciated that the learned AO had duly made inquiries and verification during the assessment proceedings in respect of the property purchased by the appellant. Invoking of provisions of section 263 of the Act is against the provisions of law, is illegal, void and without jurisdiction; The PCIT erred in passing the order u/s.263 of the Act without providing reasonable opportunity of being to the appellant. The order passed u/s.263 of the Act is against the principles of natural justice and is bad Without prejudice to above, the PCIT ought to have appreciated that the addition cannot be made in the A.Y. 19 as the appellant have purchased the said property in AY. 2017-18. And the same is evident from the Deed of Transfer for Purchase of said property. Invoking of provision of section 263 of the Act against the Assessment Order passed u/s.143(3) for the A.Y. 2018 19 is illegal, void and bad-in-law; Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to Ground No. 2 of the appeal and submitted that adequate opportunity of was not provided to the assessee, which being in violation of the principle of natural justice, matter might be restored back for deciding afresh. We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant materials on record. We find that the Ld. PCIT issued u/s 263 of the Act to the assessee on 28.03.2024 fixing the matter on 29.03.2024 and in view of non-representation decided the on 31/03/2024. The relevant finding of the Ld. PCIT is reproduced as under: In light of the above, the said assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) read with sections 143(3A) and 143(3B) of the Income M/s Dipin Bhavarlal Jain 2 ITA No. 2922/MUM/2024 PCIT\") erred in invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (\"the Act\"). The PCIT ought to have appreciated that the learned AO had duly made inquiries and verification during the assessment proceedings in respect Invoking of provisions of section 263 of the Act is against the provisions of law, is illegal, void and without jurisdiction; The PCIT erred in passing the order u/s.263 of the Act without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. The order passed u/s.263 of the Act is against the principles of natural justice and is bad-in- Without prejudice to above, the PCIT ought to have appreciated that the addition cannot be made in the A.Y. have purchased the said 18. And the same is evident from the Deed of Transfer for Purchase of said property. Invoking of provision of section 263 of the Act against the Assessment Order passed u/s.143(3) for the A.Y. 2018- for the assessee referred to Ground No. 2 of the appeal and submitted that adequate opportunity of which being in matter might be restored We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused . We find that the Ld. PCIT issued to the assessee on 28.03.2024 fixing the representation decided the . The relevant finding of the Ld. In light of the above, the said assessment order passed u/s. ) and 143(3B) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2018 prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Accordingly, a notice u/s 263 of the Income through ITBA Portal on 28/03/2024 th on 29/03/2024. In response to the said notice no one attended nor made any written submissions either online or physical copy. However, there was no response from the assessee. In view non representation from the assessee, the m the merits and materials available 3.1 It is evident that assessee for responding and thereafter the impugned order was passed. Thus, assessee has explain the issues involved in said Therefore, we feel it appropriate to set aside the order of the Ld. PCIT and restore the matter back to him for deciding afresh after taking into consideration submission of the reasoned order. The ground No. 2 of the appeal is allowed. The remaining grounds are not required to be adjudicated upon at this state and therefore, same are dismissed as infructuous. 4. In the result, the appeal of the a statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on Sd/- (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 18/02/2025 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. M/s Dipin Bhavarlal Jain ITA No. 2922/MUM/2024 Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2018-19 on 13.04.2021, is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Accordingly, a notice u/s 263 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 was issued to the assessee through ITBA Portal on 28/03/2024 through ITBA, fixing the case on 29/03/2024. In response to the said notice no one attended nor made any written submissions either online or physical copy. However, there was no response from the assessee. In view non representation from the assessee, the matter is being decided on the merits and materials available on record.” t is evident that assessee was provided only period of one day for responding and thereafter the impugned order was passed. not been provided sufficient opport involved in said notice issued by the Ld. PCIT. Therefore, we feel it appropriate to set aside the order of the Ld. PCIT and restore the matter back to him for deciding afresh after taking into consideration submission of the assessee The ground No. 2 of the appeal is allowed. The remaining grounds are not required to be adjudicated upon at this state and therefore, same are dismissed as In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for nounced in the open Court on 18/02/2025. Sd/ SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s Dipin Bhavarlal Jain 3 ITA No. 2922/MUM/2024 19 on 13.04.2021, is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Accordingly, a notice u/s Tax Act, 1961 was issued to the assessee rough ITBA, fixing the case on 29/03/2024. In response to the said notice no one attended nor made any written submissions either online or physical copy. However, there was no response from the assessee. In view non- atter is being decided on was provided only period of one day for responding and thereafter the impugned order was passed. not been provided sufficient opportunity to notice issued by the Ld. PCIT. Therefore, we feel it appropriate to set aside the order of the Ld. PCIT and restore the matter back to him for deciding afresh after assessee and pass a The ground No. 2 of the appeal is accordingly allowed. The remaining grounds are not required to be adjudicated upon at this state and therefore, same are dismissed as ssessee is allowed for /02/2025. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// M/s Dipin Bhavarlal Jain ITA No. 2922/MUM/2024 Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai M/s Dipin Bhavarlal Jain 4 ITA No. 2922/MUM/2024 BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai "