IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2020-21 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Assessee by : Shri Ramaraju, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Subramanian, JCIT Date of hearing : 13.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 20.01.2026

O R D E R

PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax–2, Bengaluru under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 31.03.2025, whereby the assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Act dated 07.09.2022 was set aside for fresh assessment.

2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1. The order passed by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax-2, is bad in law and contrary to the settled principles of law on the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. The Appellant denies itself liable to be assessed in excess of returned income as assessed and accepted by the learned assessing officer under the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. The revisional proceedings concluded under the provisions of section 263 of the Act by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax-2, is without jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed in to under the facts and circumstances of the case.

4. The learned Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax-2, is not justified in exercising the powers conferred under section 263 of the Act in the absence of mandatory twin precedent conditions i.e., 'Order passed by the learned Assessing Officer being erroneous' and Prejudicial to the interest of revenue'

under the facts and circumstances of the case.

5. The learned Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax-2, erred in law in exercising the power conferred under section 263 of the Act on those issues against which there was a specific application of mind by the learned Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings under the facts and circumstances of the case.

6. The learned Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax-2 erred in law in holding that that the learned Assessing Officer had not conducted enquiries, without proper appreciation of the fact that the learned Assessing Officer had admittedly conducted enquiries on the said issues while concluding the assessment proceedings on the facts and circumstances of the case.

7. The learned Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax-2, erred in law in exercising the revisionary powers under section 263, without independent application of mind and further without proper appreciation of the detailed submission placed on record in response to the section 263 proposal notice in pith and substance and further erred in concluding the said proceedings in a mechanical and haste manner under the facts and circumstances of the case.

8. The learned Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax-2 erred in law in invoking the Explanation 2 to Section 263 without specifying the specific clause under the said Explanation under the facts and circumstances of the case.

9. Without prejudice, none of the clauses under Explanations 2 to Section 263 were applicable in the case of the Appellant and the revision proceedings concluded under such circumstances do not have any legs to stand and is liable to be quashed in toto under the facts and circumstances of the case.

10. ⁠Without further prejudice the learned Principal Commissioner of Income- Tax-2 even while invoking the Explanation 2 to Section 263 of the Act, is not justified in not conducting minimal enquiry to allege that the claim of the Appellant was not acceptable, and thereby the revision proceedings concluded under such circumstances do not have any legs to stand and is liable to be quashed in toto under the facts and circumstances of the case.

11. The learned Principal Commis