SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(ITAT) 1818

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (MUMBAI BENCH)
VIJAY RAAZ GODBUNDAR ROAD DIST. THANE – Appellant
Versus
WARD 16(1)(5) MUMBAI – Respondent
ITA 3416/MUM/2025[2020-2021]



##PAGE1##

(cid:1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI

BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

AND

MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM

ITA No. 3416/Mum/2025

(Assessment Year: 2020-21)

Vijay Raaz Ward 16(1)(5), Mumbai

Cottage No. B-13, Cosmos Hawaiian,

Near Blue Roof Club, Ghodbunder Vs.

Road, Thane, West 400 601.

PAN/GIR No. ADLPR8784L

(Appellant) : (Respondent

Assessee by : Shri Manish Trivedi

Respondent by : Shri Vivek Perampurna (CIT-DR)

Date of Hearing : 07.11.2025

Date of Pronouncement : 30.01.2026

O R D E R

Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M:

This appeal has been filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the learned

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, PCIT, Mumbai – 8 (‘ld. PCIT’ for short),

passed u/s.263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment

Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2020-21.

2. It is observed that the assessee has filed the present appeal with a delay of 5 days beyond

the period of limitation for which the assessee has filed an application along with

affidavit for condoning the said delay. On perusal of the same, we deem it fit to condone

the delay for the reason that the assessee had ‘sufficient cause’ for the said delay. Delay

condoned.

##PAGE2##

ITA No. 3416/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2020-21)

Vijay Raaz

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

The conditions precedent for invoking section 263 not satisfied

1. The learned PCIT erred in invoking jurisdiction u/s 263 when the AO had already

examined the issue in scrutiny proceedings and accepted the claim after due

verification as he failed to bring on record any findings which proves that the order

of learned assessing officer is Erroneous and Prejudicial to the interest of the

Revenue.

2. The order passed u/s 143(3) is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest

of revenue.

Reliance on the general investigation data

3. The learned PCIT erred in invoking jurisdiction under section 263 and relied on

general investigation data as was informed by the Investigation Wing Ahmedabad

without any specific adverse material or findings against the appellant.

No opportunity of cross examination given to the assessee

4. The learned PCIT erred in law by not giving an opportunity to rebut any direct

evidence or statement or findings to the assessee; hence, the revision order violates

principles of natural justice.

Objection raised by the assessee was never refuted or no speaking order passed

under section 263 against the same.

5. The learned PCIT erred in law by invoking provision of section 263 and passed

the order under section 263. He completely ignored the objection raised by the

assessee against the show cause notice proposing the reopening of the assessment

and reassess the income under section 263 in violation of CBDT guidelines of

issuing the speaking order.

No findings recorded how the donation paid by the assessee is non-genuine:

6. The learned PCIT failed to bring on record any findings or evidence as how the

donation is not genuine and how the cash is paid back to the assessee against the

genuine donation as alleged in the order under section 263. The deduction claimed

u/s 80GGC was in compliance with law and based on valid documentary evidence.

Revision under section 263 is based on mere suspicion:

2

##PAGE3##

ITA No. 3416/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2020-21)

Vijay Raaz

7. The revision is based on mere suspicion and constitutes a change of opinion,

which is not a valid ground for exercise of revisional powers.

Impugned Revision order under section 263 is unlawful

8. The impugned order is arbitrary, unlawful and liable to be set aside.

No evidence is brough not record that Apana Desh Political Party is not registered

under Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951

9. The learned PCIT failed to bring on record any proof or findings that Apana

Desh Political Party is not registered under section 29A of the Representation of

the People Act, 1951against the proof submitted by the assessee of official gazette

of Election Commission of India confirming that the party is registered

unrecognised part

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top