IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA 2646/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 20 18-19)

Apurva Natvar Parikh & v/s. The Principal Commissioner Co. Pvt. Limited,411B, बनाम of Income Tax(Central), Hemu Kalani Marg, Near Mumbai - 6, Room No. 501, Bhakti Bhavan, Chembur, 5^th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400071, Maharashtra M.K. Road, Mumbai -

400020, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AAACN2937Q Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

Appellant by : Shri Madhur Agarwal, AR Respondent by : Dr. K.R. Subhash, (CIT-DR)

Date of Hearing 08.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement 01.05.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER PRABHASH SHANKAR [A.M.] :-

The present appeal filed by the assessee emanates from the Revision order u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] dated 12.03.2024 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, (Central),Mumbai - 6 [hereinafter referred to ‘PCIT’] pertaining to assessment order passed u/s. 143(3)of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] dated 07.04.2021 for the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2018-19.

2. The grounds of the appeal are as under:-

1. The appellant submits that the revision order passed by the Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/Income Tax Officer. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax”) under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act)

is illegal, null and void and bad in law and should be cancelled.

2. The appellant submits that jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act could be assumed only where order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Where the appellant’s case is directly covered by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Diners Business Services Pvt. Ltd. [263 ITR 1 (Bom)] (which was accepted in the originally completed assessments for assessment years 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06), order passed by the Assessing Officer in conformity with the said High Court order cannot be said to be erroneous and accordingly, not amenable to revision under section 263 of the Act.

3. The Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax erred in holding that the Assessing Officer had passed the assessment order under section 143(3) rws 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Act without application of mind to the issue of treating one time membership entrance fees as capital receipt and thus is erroneous, just because the issue was not detailed elaborately in the said assessment order. The appellant submits that the Assessing Officer passed his order after making due inquiry and merely because detailed discussion has not been made in his order, the same cannot be termed as erroneous.

4. The appellant submits that the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income-

tax erred in passing an order under section 263 of the Act for setting aside the order of the Assessing Officer so that he may carry out requisite inquiries. The appellant submits that this could amount to change of opinion which is not permitted under section 263 of the Act.

5. The Ld. Principal of Commissioner of Income-tax erred in treating the one time membership entrance fees as not being capital receipt despite decision of the jurisdictional high court in the case of Diners Business Services Private Limited [263 ITR 1(Bom)] wherein it is categorically held that such a receipt is in the nature of capital receipt and, therefore, not taxable.

6. The Ld. Principal of Commissioner of Income Tax erred in confirming that there is under assessment of income on account of failure on the part of the appellant in considering the disallowance u/s 14A rwr 8D to the extent of Rs 33,07,273/- when appellant itself had disallowed amount of Rs 50,78,050/- in the return of income filed for the assessment year under consideration.

3. Facts of the case are that the ld.PCIT set aside the assessment