##PAGE1##

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

“B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT

SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No. 993/Ahd/2024

(Assessment Year: 2015-16)

Bipinkumar Rambhai Patel,

Vs. Principal Commissioner of

B/25, Ranchod Colony,

Income-tax-1,

Maninagar, Ahmedabad-380008

Ahmedabad-1

[PAN :AQAPP 5046 M]

(Appellant) .. (Respondent

Appellant represented by : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Advocate

Respondent represented by: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR

Date of Hearing 26.11.2025

Date of Pronouncement 30.01.2026

O R D E R

PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:-

This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the

Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Ahmedabad-1 (hereinafter referred

to as "PCIT" for short), dated 16.03.2024, in exercise of his revisionary powers

under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the

Act”], for the Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16.

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

“1. The learned PCIT has erred in law and on facts in passing the order

u/s.263 of the Act while considering the assessment order u/s.147 r.w.s 144

r.w.s 1448 of the Act passed by the FAO on 24/03/2022 for the year in

question as erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue inasmuch as he had

accepted the retuned income as assessed income while not making any

additions as per the SCN issued and reasons recorded for reopening of the

assessment.

2. The learned PCIT has erred in law and on facts for not

considering/appreciating the submission of the appellant filed before him

ITA No. 993/Ahd/2024

Bipinkumar Rambhai Patel Vs. PCIT

Asst. Year : 2015-16

- 2–

in right perspective before passing of the impugned order u/s.263 of the

Act.

3. The learned PCIT has erred in law and on facts in passing the revision

order on the basis of revenue audit objections and without assessment of

facts of the appellants' case independently. The said order is thus bad in law

and requires to be quashed.

4. The learned PCIT has erred in law and on facts in failing to consider the

fact that the appellant having furnished the details/evidences in support of

the SCN issued by the FAO and after considering such details/evidences, the

FAO had come to a definite conclusion and a particular view was taken, the

mere fact that the learned PCIT was of a different view which is also based

on revenue audit objections, it cannot be a basis for action for revision of

the assessment order. The impugned order of revision u/s.263 of the Act is

thus wholly unjustified and bad in law.

5. The learned PCIT has erred in law and on facts in failing to consider the

fact that the FAO had exercised quasi-judicial power vested in him in

accordance with the law and arrived at a particular conclusion on the facts

as well as on law and merely such conclusion has not been elaborately

discussed/mentioned in the assessment order, the said order could not be

termed as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue as per the

settled law. The section does not visualize case of substitution of the

judgment of the PCIT for that of the FAO.

6. The learned PCIT has erred in giving the direction to set aside the

assessment order passed by the FAO and to pass fresh assessment after

verification of the facts of the case. Since the FAO has accepted the

returned income as an assessed income and not made any addition after

verification of facts of the case, the direction given by the learned PCIT to

verify the same facts again is bad in law and consequentially order u/s 263

of the Act requires to be quashed. “

3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income

for the assessment year under consideration on 27.04.2016 declaring total

income of Rs.2,20,500/-. Subsequently, based on information received from

Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad, relating to a search conducted u/s 132 in the

case of Shri Jignesh Shah and Shri Sanjay Shah, the assessment was reopened u/s

147 of the Act.

ITA No. 993/Ahd/2024

Bipinkumar Rambhai Patel Vs.