An assessment order cannot be deemed erroneous under Section 263 without demonstrable evidence of error; dissatisfaction alone does not suffice.

PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER;

1. These two appeals by assessee directed against the separate orders of Pr.CIT (Central), Mumbai – 1, both dated 29.03.2025 for A.Y. 2018-19 and 2020-21. Certain facts in both the appeals are common, the assessee has raised certain common ground of appeal, therefore, with the consent of parties both the appeals were clubbed, heard together and are decided by common order to avoid the conflicting decision. For appreciation of fact, facts in A.Y. 2018-19 in ITA No. 3644/M/2025 is treated as lead case. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:

“1. The Ld. CIT erred in holding the assessment order dated 30/03/2023 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153(C) of the Act as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue by invoking Explanation 2 to section 263 of the Act, without appreciating the fact that, the assessing officer had completed the assessment after making complete enquiry and verification, therefore, the general observations made by Ld. PCIT for invoking revisionary powers u/s 263 of the Act are incorrect and contrary to material on record.

2. The Ld. PCIT erred in setting aside the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153(C) dated 30/03/2023 for making fresh assessment without assigning any defects or inconsistency in the assessment order, thus invoking revisionary powers u/s 263 of the Act merely for make roving and fishing query is beyond the jurisdiction and unjustified.

3. The Ld. PCIT failed to appreciate that assessment order was passed in the group cases which were centralised, after analysis of all the incriminating seized material (in the case of Alankit Group). statement recorded and after mandatory approval u/s 153D of the Act from Addl CIT and therefore, to hold such an order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue is unjustified and bad in law.

4. The Ld. PCIT in the impugned order as failed to point out any specific defect or escapement of income or any particular issue or document which had remained to be examine, therefore, merely invoking Explanation 2 to sec. 263 in fact of the case is not justified.

5. The Assessee craves leave to add, alter modify or delete one or more ground before or at the time of hearing of Appeal.”

3. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is individual, filed his return of income for A.Y. 2018-19 on 06.07.2018 declaring income at Rs. 44,68,530/-. A search action was carried out on Alankit Group Delhi group on 18.10.2019. During search action, certain documents were extracted from laptop of Sunil Kumar Gupta, associate of Alok Agarwal of Alankit Group. Such documents were seized from the residence of Sunil Kumar Gupta, Narang Colony, Gali No. 4, Tri Nagar, Delhi. Consequent upon search action cases of Alankit group was centralized with Central Circle, New Delhi. A satisfaction note about incriminating material pertaining to assessee was drawn by DCIT, Central Circle, New Delhi. On the basis of such satisfaction note was drawn and accordingly notice under section 153C was issued to the assessee for filing return of income for various assessment years. In response to notice under section 153C, the assessee filed his return of income on 19.10.2022 declaring the same income as declared originally. The assessing officer after issuing certain show cause notice and on receiving reply thereto accepted the return of income in assessment order dated 30.03.2023. The assessment order was passed with prior approval of Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Central Range – 1, Mumbai. The assessment order was revised by ld. PCIT in his order dated 29.03.2025 passed under section 263. Before re