आयकर अपील(cid:547)य अ(cid:876)धकरण Ûयायपीठ रायपुर म(cid:581)।

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.307/RPR/2025 (cid:467)नधा(cid:91)रण वष (cid:91) / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Technoblast Mining Corporation 19, 2nd Floor, Krishna Complex, Chaityana Nagar, Raigarh (C.G.)- 496 001 PAN: AAEFT5992Q ........अपीलाथ(cid:568) / Appellant बनाम / V/s.

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1 ……(cid:292)×यथ(cid:568) / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Ram Tiwari, Sr. DR सुनवाई क(cid:551) तार(cid:547)ख / Date of Hearing : 26.06.2025 घोषणा क(cid:551) तार(cid:547)ख / Date of Pronouncement : 27.06.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM:

This appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1 (for short ‘Pr. CIT”) passed u/s.263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( for short ‘the Act’) dated 11.03.2025 for the assessment year 2020-21 as per the grounds of appeal on record.

2. In this case, the assessee is aggrieved with the fact that the Pr. CIT, Raipur had invoked revisionary jurisdiction and passed order u/s. 263 of the Act, dated 11.03.2025. It would be pertinent to observe the relevant contents of the said order which reads as follows:

“3. Considering the facts narrated in the foregoing paras which have emanated from the case record, I am of the considered view that the order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income tax Act, 1961 vide order dated 20.08.2022 is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue and therefore, needs to be revised under the provisions of section 263 of the IT Act, 1961. The revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act was therefore initiated in the instant case of the assessee and before initiating such proceedings the assessment records have been gone through and after such thoughtful perusal of the same an independent assessment of the facts are ascertained in the case. The decision for revision of the case is based on fair and thorough investigations in tax matters and the importance of adhering to legal principles to ensure justice and integrity in tax assessments. Thus, an independent application of mind is ensured for revision of the case in hand.

4. In view of the above facts, a show cause e-notice u/s 263 dated 22.01.2025 was issued to the assessee, incorporating the above facts, asking to furnish her reply with supporting evidence. The assessee complied with the notice and filed submission on 03.03.2025and the gist of the submission is being produced as under:-

"This fact was available on the record while making the assessment. The Id. AO while making the assessment specifically asked this question by issuing show-cause dated 03.04.2022 regarding the above referred question i.e. regarding the delay in making payment of the above referred payments. The assessee replied for the same and after considering the reply of the assessee the learned AO framed an opinion and passed the assessment order. The finance Act, 2021 as pointed out by your honor, was also existing at that time. The Id. Assessing Officer has considered this fact while making the assessment order. Hence, the assessment order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue on this ground."

The assessee has relied on the decision of the following cases in support of its claim:

1. CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) Bombay High Court.

2. CIT Vs. T.Naraina Pai of Karnataka High Court.

3. Venkatakrishna Rice Co. Vs. CIT (1987) Madras High Court.

4. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

5. Dawjee Dadabhoy & Co. Vs. S P Jain &Anr.

6. CIT Vs. Smt. Minalben S Parik of Gujarat High Court.

7. K A Ramaswami Chettiar Vs. CIT of Madras High Court.

8. Duggal & Co. Vs. CIT of Delhi High Court.

9. Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. CWT of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

10.