QUATTRO WELL PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI V. PCIT DELHI-4, DELHI

ITA 2424/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Quattro Well Pvt Ltd, the appellant, contesting an order by the PCIT under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which pertained to the assessment year 2021-22. The PCIT had set aside the original assessment order under sections 143(3) and 144B, claiming it was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The grounds of appeal included allegations of incorrect facts being used to initiate proceedings, lack of jurisdiction, and failure to provide a proper hearing. The Tribunal found that the PCIT had not provided a reasonable opportunity for the assessee to be heard, leading to the decision to restore the appeal for reconsideration.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 774552 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2021-2022
• Appeal Filed On: 11-04-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JITENDER SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: RUCHESH SINHA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Business expenditure; Fair market value; Revision of order
• Section: 143(3); 263

Judgement Text

"Page 1 of 6 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘A’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2424/D3EL/2025 [A.Y 2021-22] Quattro Well Pvt Ltd Vs. The P.C.I.T E-78, Greater Kailash -I New Delhi Greater Kailash, South Delhi, Delhi PAN: AAACL 2132 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ruchesh Sinha, Adv Department By : Shri Jitender Singh,CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 26.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 26.08.2025 ORDER PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, AM :- This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the PCIT, Delhi-4 dated 24.03.2025 pertaining to A.Y 2021-22. 2. At the very outset the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted his grievances vide grounds of appeal which read as under: Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 2424 /DEL/2025 Quattro Well Vs PCIT [A.Y 2021-22] Page 2 of 6 “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the proceedings under section 263 of the Act having been initiated on the basis of incorrect facts, the impugned order passed pursuant thereto is without jurisdiction, illegal and bad in law. 2. That the Ld. PCIT erred on facts and in law in exercising revisionary powers under section 263 of the Act on various issues in the impugned order, without satisfying the twin jurisdictional conditions of the assessment order being: (a) erroneous; and (b) prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and consequently, the impugned order is illegal, bad in law and liable to be quashed. 3. That while passing the an ex-parte order the Ld. PCIT has not appreciated that the notice was hearing was only sent through email which could not be replied by the appellant as the company is not engaged in any commercial operation and has closed its operation. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the Ld PCIT, under section 263 setting aside the assessment framed under section 143(3)/144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue on the alleged ground of non application of mind and non in depth examination/investigation of alleged three issues for which the case was selected for scrutiny and is stereotyped, is without jurisdiction bad in law and void- ab- initio. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld PCIT erred in law while framing the order under section 263 of setting aside the Assessment Order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act by wrongly enhancing the scope of scrutiny assessment by directing the AO for in depth examination Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 2424 /DEL/2025 Quattro Well Vs PCIT [A.Y 2021-22] Page 3 of 6 /investigation of three issues namely Low PBIT, paid receivable written off and FMV for Slump Sale as the issues for which the case was selected for scrutiny whereas as per the assessment order the case was selected for scrutiny to verify the business expenses as the assessee had reported very low PBDIT ratio during the year under consideration. 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT erred in exercising jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act setting aside the assessment framed under section 143(3)/144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue without appreciating that the original assessment order under section 143(3)/144B of the Act having been passed under the faceless assessment scheme where the Assessment is completed by the Assessment Unit under the supervision of the National E Assessment Centre and Review Unit as prescribed under the faceless Assessment Scheme and hence the by no stretch to imagination, can the provisions of section 263 be attracted in the present case 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. PCIT erred in setting aside the assessment order by exercising powers under section 263 of the Act. without appreciating that: (a) it was not a case of lack of enquiry on any of the issues raised; (b) the view taken by the assessing officer in respect of the various issues was, in any case, a plausible view; and (c) revisionary proceedings under could not be initiated on a mere presumption and assumption of non-examination/ investigation by the AO which is Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 2424 /DEL/2025 Quattro Well Vs PCIT [A.Y 2021-22] Page 4 of 6 not a reason specified under section 263 for setting aside the assessment 7.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT erred in alleging that the order of assessing officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue in as much as Ld. PCIT failed to appreciate the detailed reply submitted by the Assessee to explain the low PBIT and quoted some part of the reply to held non application of mind and non in depth examination/investigation to pass as order u/s 263. 7.2 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld PCIT failed to appreciate that accounting entries are not determinative of the taxability of any claim of income or deductibility of expenditure under the provisions of the Income tax Act 1961. 8. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order having been passed by the PCIT in undue haste without: (a) affording reasonable opportunity of being heard by not serving the proper notice to the Appellant and (b) granting oral/ personal hearing, is illegal, bad in law and liable to be quashed. 9. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend or vary the aforesaid grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.\" 3. At the very outset, the ld counsel of the assessee vehemently submitted that the PCIT has passed an ex-parte order u/s 263. The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the PCIT has not afforded Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 2424 /DEL/2025 Quattro Well Vs PCIT [A.Y 2021-22] Page 5 of 6 reasonable opportunity of being heard by not serving proper notice to assessee. Per contra, the ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 4. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials on record. Having heard the rival submissions, we are of the considered view that the PCIT ought to have given a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it fit to restore the appeal to the file of the PCIT for reconsideration. The PCIT is directed to decide the matter afresh after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and considering the evidences/material furnished by the assessee. The assessee is directed to cooperate with the proceedings and furnish documents/evidence as required by the Assessing Officer. 5. In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No. 2424/DEL/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on 26.08.2025. Sd/- Sd/- [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] [NAVEEN CHANDRA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 2424 /DEL/2025 Quattro Well Vs PCIT [A.Y 2021-22] Page 6 of 6 Dated : 09th SEPTEMBER, 2025. VL/ Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) Asst. Registrar, 5. DR ITAT, New Delhi Sl No. PARTICULARS DATES 1. Date of dictation of Tribunal Order 2. Date on which the typed draft order is placed before the Dictating Member 3. Date on which the typed draft order is placed before the other Member [in case of DB] 4. Date on which the approved draft order comes to the Sr. P.S./P.S. 5. Date on which the fair Order is placed before the Dictating Member for sign 6. Date on which the fair order is placed before the other Member for sign [in case of DB] 7. Date on which the Order comes back to the Sr. P.S./P.S for uploading on ITAT website 8. Date of uploading, inf not, reason for not uploading 9. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 10. Date on which the file goes for Xerox 11. Date on which the file goes for endorsement 12. The date on which the file goes to the Superintendent for checking 13. Date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order 14. Date on which the file goes to the dispatch section for dispatch the Tribunal order 15. Date of Dispatch of the Order 16. Date on which the file goes to the Record Room after dispatch the order Printed from counselvise.com "