MALIKA BAKSHI,DELHI V. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL ONE

ITA 3148/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Malika Bakshi, the appellant, who challenged the revision jurisdiction assumed by the PCIT under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, concerning the assessment year 2021-22. The dispute arose from an assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act, where the Assessing Officer (AO) made additions to the assessee's declared income, leading to a revised taxable income. The PCIT later sought to revise this assessment, claiming it was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Tribunal found that the PCIT's basis for revision was incorrect, as the figures in the computation sheet were accurate, and thus, the revision order was quashed.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 788788 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 13-05-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DAYAINDER SINGH SIDHU
• Assessee Lawyers: HARI OM JINDAL
• Keywords: Capital Gains; Revision of order
• Section: 143(3); 154; 263

Judgement Text

"Page | 1 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 3148/Del/2025 (Assessment Year:2021-22) Malika Bakshi 32, Vasant Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi Vs. PCIT, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: ALWPB4579N Assessee by : Shri Hariom Jindal, CA Revenue by: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing 11/11/2025 Date of pronouncement 28/11/2025 O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in ITA No.3148/Del/2025 for AY 2021-22, arises out of the order of the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-1, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. Pr. CIT(A)’, in short] dated 06.03.2025 against the order of assessment passed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 31.03.2023 by the Assessing Officer, ACIT, Central Circle-5, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’). 2. This appeal is filed by the assessee challenging the validity of assumption of revision jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act both on law as well as on facts. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The assessee has filed her return of income for AY Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 3148/Del/2025 Malika Bakshi Page | 2 2021-22 on 14.01.2022 declaring taxable income of Rs. 3,44,60,520/- which stood revised on 30.03.2022 declaring taxable income at Rs. 6,64,50,520/-. The assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was completed on 31.03.2023 determining total income of Rs. 13,96,56,992/- after making an addition of Rs. 9,31,96,472/- on account of long term capital gains and Rs. 1,20,00,000/- on account of unexplained money u/s 69A read with Section 115BBE of the Act. In the assessment order, the ld AO had given long term capital gain computation of Rs. 9,31,96,472/- and had added the same in the final computation of income as against long term capital gain disclosed by the assessee in the sum of Rs. 1,89,47,440/-. But the ld AO instead of adding the difference of Rs. 7,42,49,032/- (Rs. 9,31,96,472/- (-) 1,89,47,440/-) erroneously added the gross long term capital gain figure to Rs. 9,31,96,472/- in the assessment order thereby leading to double addition of Rs 1,99,47,440/-. Further in the computation of total income which is enclosed separately as computation sheet, the ld AO had considered the actual income of the assessee only at Rs. 12,07,19,604/- which is after reducing the long term capital gain disclosed by the assessee in the return and amount of tax and interest payable determined accordingly. This assessment order was framed on 31.03.2023 u/s 143(3) of the Act. The assessee filed rectification application u/s 154 of the Act on 19.04.2023 before the ld AO seeking rectification the aforesaid mistake in the body of the assessment order. The said application was not disposed of by the ld AO. Meanwhile, the ld PCIT by invoking his revision jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act sought to revise the assessment order framed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 31.03.2023 by treating the said order as erroneous inasmuch as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue on the ground that in the computation sheet attached with the assessment order, the total income was wrongly taken Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 3148/Del/2025 Malika Bakshi Page | 3 by the ld AO at Rs. 12,07,09,600/- as against the total income mentioned in the body of the assessment order at Rs. 13,96,56,992/-. 4. We have already stated earlier that the figure mentioned in the computation sheet attached with the assessment order is correct and the figure mentioned in the body of the assessment order is incorrect as the ld AO had adopted the gross long term capital gain figure of Rs. 9,31,96,472/- without reducing the long term capital gain already disclosed by the assessee in the return of income. Hence, we hold that there is no error in the computation sheet of the assessment order at all warranting any revision thereon by the ld PCIT. Hence, we have no hesitation to quash the order passed u/s 263 by the ld PCIT by holding that the very basis of assumption of revision jurisdiction by the ld PCIT is completely flawed. The revision order passed u/s 263 of the Act is totally quashed. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 28/11/2025. -Sd/- -Sd/- (MADHUMITA ROY) (M. BALAGANESH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 28/11/2025 A K Keot Copy forwarded to 1. Applicant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, New Delhi Printed from counselvise.com "