IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW ‘B’ BENCH, LUCKNOW BEFORE SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A.Y. 2012-13 Najma, vs. PCIT, PMAoNh-: BArPaPhaPmN0pu2r6, 7BGu daun, Uttar Bareilly, U.P.-243001 Pradesh-243601 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue by: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, CIT DR Date of hearing: 19.11.2025 Date of pro nouncement: O R D1 3E. 0R2 .2026 PER NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M.:

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. PCIT, Bareilly under section 263 of the Income Tax Act on 22.03.2021 revising the order of the Assessing Officer passed under section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on “3G0r.o0u6n.2d0s 1N7o. .T1 hTeh ger oLuenardnse odf PapCIpTe, aBl aarreei lalys uhnads eerr:-red in initiating and completing the revisionary proceedings u/s 263 of the Act in the hands of the assessee, and setting aside the case to the Assessing officer, with total disregard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and is untenable under the law.

Grounds No. 2 The Learned PCIT, Bareilly erred in setting aside the assessment made vide order under section 143(3)/147 dated 30/06/2017 and passing an order under section 263 of the Act on the grounds that the original assessment order passed under section 143(3)/147 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and directing AO to frame fresh assessment order (de novo) after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellants.

Grounds No. 3 The Learned PCIT, Bareilly has further failed to appreciate that the original assessment order was passed by the Assessing officer after considering all the issues mentioned in his show cause notice and after making due enquiries, and thus the case was not the one of lack of enquiry by the Assessing officer.

Grounds No. 4 The Learned PCIT, Bareilly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in wrongly setting aside the assessment order dated 30/06/2017 despite there being complete application of mind by the AO on the subjected issues and it was nothing but a case of change of opinion, based on which, assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 is not permissible. The impugned order dated 22/03/2022 therefore, lacks valid jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and hence, the same kindly be quashed.

Grounds No. 5 The Learned PCIT, Bareilly further failed to appreciate that where there were two possible views and a logical view had been taken by the Assessing officer in the original assessment proceedings, the revisionary proceedings could not be initiated to substitute his own view.

Grounds No. 6 That the finding of Learned PCIT, Bareilly that order of the learned Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue is factually incorrect, legally misconceived, contrary to evidence on record; and in any case is vague, based on surmiseful considerations; and therefore unsustainable.

Grounds No. 7 That the Learned PCIT, Bareilly has erred in holding that it is a case of "lack of enquiry" and, further failing to appreciate that alleged inadequate enquiry in the manner suggested without any independent evidence and, without any further enquiries by him cannot be a basis for assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act.

Grounds No. 8 The Learned PCIT, Bareilly has without conducting any independent enquiries has held the order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, has set aside the assessment back to the file of the Assessing officer with total disregard to the facts and circumstances of the case. The CIT has failed to appreciate that powers of revision u/s 263 cannot be exercised for redoing the investigation, rather the CIT ought to have done the investigation himself before restoring the matter to the AO.

Grounds No. 9 The Learned PCIT, Bareilly has further ignored that in view of the provisions of explanation 2 of section 263, it is incumbent to point out what more enquiries would the AO ough