Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(ITAT) 316
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (NAGPUR BENCH)
Shri V. Durga Rao, Shri K.M. Roy, JJ
DATTU SAMPAT VANKHEDE NAGPUR – Appellant
Versus
PCIT-2 NAGPUR – Respondent
ITA 581/NAG/2024
Shri Dilip Lohiya, Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
The court ruled that a revision under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act is unjustified if no new income has escaped assessment, and delays in filing appeals must be adequately justified.
Headnote:(A) Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 263 - Appeal against the order of the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax regarding reassessment - The order was deemed illegal and excessive as it failed to consider prior assessments and lacked jurisdiction - The court found no new income had escaped assessment, rendering the revision unjustified. (Paras 1-4, 9)
(B) Delay in filing appeal - The court did not condone the delay due to insufficient evidence of bona fide conduct by the assessee. (Paras 4-5)
Facts of the case:
The assessee challenged the order under Section 263, arguing that the original assessment had already addressed the issues raised, and no new income had escaped assessment. The appeal was filed late, citing various reasons for the delay.
Findings of Court:
The court found no satisfactory evidence to justify the delay in filing the appeal and dismissed the grounds raised by the assessee.
Issues: The main issues included whether the revision under Section 263 was justified and whether the delay in filing the appeal could be condoned.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax acted without jurisdiction in revising the assessment order, as no new income was identified as having escaped assessment, and the delay in filing the appeal was not satisfactorily explained.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. grounds raised by the assessee (Para 2) |
| 2. delay in filing appeal (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. final decision of the court (Para 5) |
O R D E R
PER K.M. ROY, A.M.
This appeal by the assessee is emanating from the impugned order dated 22/02/2021, passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–2, [“learned PCIT”], for the assessment year 2014–15.
2. In its appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds:–
“1. The order passed by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur-2 U/s 263 under the Income Tax Act, 1961 is illegal, invalid and bad in law.
2. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur-2 ought to have considered order passed U/s. 143(3) rws 147 since all the issues of sale of two immovable property transaction were discussed and considered at the time of original reassessment u/S 147 and the assessing officer has accepted the contentions of the assessee and without finding any new income as a escaped income is not erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue, therefore, again on same issue or income order passed U/s. 263 for reassessment afresh is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive.
3. The order passed by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur-2 on the ground with direction to reassess the income of the assessee afresh after examining the relevant details and other issues and conduct proper enquiry, as may be relevant and necessary and then pass a speaking assessment order, for reassessment proceedings completed U/s 143(3) rws 147 on 12.10.2018 without any addition after accepting the contentions of the assessee on the sale of two agriculture land at Rs.90 Lakhs so there is no finding of new income as escapement of income, therefore order passed U/s 263 is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive.
4. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur-2 passed the order U/s. 263 without going into provisions of the law of reassessment U/s 147 and merits of the case, therefore the order passed is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 5. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur-2 passed the order U/s. 263 without jurisdiction and without going into provisions of the law of section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which confers power on the CIT to revise an assessment order not on the recommendation of the AO therefore the order passed is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive.
6. a) Whether the revision U/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 allowed the Assessing Officer to initiate the proposal of revision U/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of own order without jurisdiction is justified and allowable under the Act?
b) Whether the revision order U/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 allowed after issuance of a notice U/s 148 initially formed a reason to believe that an income had escaped assessment, reassessment order passed U/s 143(3) rws 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 after accepting the contention of the assessee, has as a matter of fact not escaped assessment, is justified and allowable under the Act?
7. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur-2 erred in law for revision order U/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without going into the provisions of law and without following the judicial pronouncements awarded by the various Honorable High Courts and ITA T. A) The honorable Delhi High Court in the case of The Pr CIT-7 Vs Prosperous Buildcon P Ltd ITA .239/2019 Dt.19.10.2023 has found resonance with the judgement by 3 High Courts in the following cases.
(i) CIT v. Jet Airways (1) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom);
(ii) CIT v. Mohmed Juned Dadani [2013] 355 ITR 172 (Guj); Manu/GJ/0061/2013
(iii) Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Addl. CIT Manu/DE/1935/2014
therefore, the revision U/s 263 is not allowable in law as a matter of facts of the case, hence the order passed U/s 263 for revision of a reassessment order is illegal, invalid and bad in law.
B) Alfa Laval Lund AB C/o Alfa Laval(India) Ltd Vs CIT(IT/TP), Pune , dated 02.11.2021, Pu
