आयकर अपील(cid:547)य अ(cid:876)धकरण, राजकोट Ûयायपीठ, राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Sr. ITA No. Assessment Appellant By Respondent By No. Year

1. 03/Rjt/2024 2012-13 Mansukhlal Khimji Office of Principle Khimasiya HUF Commissioner of Mahavir, Nr. Jain Income Tax, Temple,42- Digvijay Taranjali Building, Plot, Jamnagar - 361008 Jamnagar – 361005 PAN No.:

AADHS2920Q

2. 04/Rjt/2024 2013-14 Mansukhlal Khimaji Office of Principle Khimasiya Commissioner of M/s. Metro Metal Income Tax, Corporation, 358/1, Taranjali Building, G.I.D.C., Shanker Jamnagar - 361008 Tekri, Jamnagar – 361004 PAN No.: AFNPS7410Q

3. 05/Rjt/2024 2012-13 Bhanuben Office of Principle Mansukhlal Commissioner of Khimasiya Income Tax, Mahavir, Nr. Jain Taranjali Building, Temple, 42- Digvijay Jamnagar - 361008 Plot, Jamnagar – 361005 PAN No.:

AOZPS9722C

4. 06/Rjt/2024 2012-13 Jayesh Khimji Office of Principle Khimasiya HUF Commissioner of Income Tax, Vatsal, Summair Taranjali Building, Club Road, 3 –

Jamnagar - 361008 Oswal Colony, आदेश / O R D E R PER BENCH:

By way of these four appeals, the different assessees have challenged the correctness of the orders dated 06.11.2023 (in ITA Nos. 03, 05 and 06/Rjt/2024), and dated 18.12.2023 (in ITA No.04/Rjt/2024), passed by the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (in short “Ld PCIT”) under section 263 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for the assessment years 2012-13, and 2013-14.

2. Since, the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical; therefore, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as the facts narrated in ITA No. 03/Rjt/2024, for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13, in the case of Mansukhlal Khimaji Khimasiya, have been taken into consideration for deciding the above appeals en masse

3. Grievances raised by the assessee, in ITA No. 03/Rjt/2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13 ( lead case) which, being interconnected, will be taken up together, are as follows:

“(i) The Ld. PCIT has grossly erred in law and on facts in assuming jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act on the erroneous ground that the impugned assessment order is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.

(ii) The Ld. PCIT has grossly erred in not appreciating that in order to invoke section 263, two conditions must be fulfilled viz. the impugned assessment order must be erroneous and that error must be prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In the present case, Ld. assessing officer has passed the reasoned assessment order after analyzing all details and therefore, there was no error in the impugned assessment order so as to justify action u/s 263 of the Act. Under the circumstances, the very assumption of power u/s 263 of the Act is unjustified and bad in law and therefore, order u/s 263 of the Act deserves to be quashed.

(iii) The subject order u/s 263 passed by Ld. PCIT is illegal and bad in law in the absence of any finding of the Ld. PCIT as to how the alleged error of the Ld. assessing officer has resulted in loss of revenue particularly when the conditions of section 10(38) of the Act have been fulfilled.

(iv) The Ld. PCIT has further erred in law in not coming to any concrete conclusion and without conducting any inquiry or investigating the issue, merely directed the Ld. assessing officer to frame the assessment order afresh. Without there being any positive finding about order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, the action of Ld. PCIT is without jurisdiction and illegal and hence deserves to be deleted.”

4. The relevant material facts, as culled out from the material on record, are as follows. The assessee has filed original return of income showing, income of Rs.4,05,220/-, on 31/07/2012, for assessment year (AY) 2012-13. The