आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘बी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI श्री मनु कु मार गिरर, न्यागिक सदस्य एवं श्री एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.:895/Chny/2025 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Megnanapuram Primary PCIT Agricultural Co-Operative Credit vs. Madurai - I Society

4/40, Megnanapuram Tiruchendur Road, Tiruchendur Thoothukudi – 628 210. [PAN: AABAM-9847-M]

(अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant by : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri. Shiva Srinivas, CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 24.06.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 19.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, AM :

This appeal by the assessee is filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), PCIT, Madurai - 1, for the assessment year 2018-19, vide order dated 17.03.2025.

2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as follows:

1) 1. The revisional order of the PCIT, Madurai – 1 dated 17.03.2025 vide DIN &

Order No. ITBA/REV/F/REV5/2024-25/1074592223(1) for the above mentioned Assessment Year is contrary to law, fact and in circumstances of the case.

2) The PCIT erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and consequently erred in setting aside the re-assessment order dated 20.11.2023 without assigning proper reasons and justification.

3) The PCIT failed to appreciate that revision order was passed out of time, invalid, passed without jurisdiction and not sustainable both on facts and in law.

4) The PCIT failed to appreciate that there could not be any scope for setting aside an order of re-assessment passed in assuming incorrect jurisdiction in terms of Section 147 of the Act and ought to have appreciated that the consequential assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act to revise an invalid order of re-assessment order should accordingly be reckoned as bad in law.

5) The PCIT failed to appreciate that the twin conditions prescribed for assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act were not satisfied concurrently on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and hence ought to have appreciated that the order of revision under consideration was passed out of time, invalid, passed without jurisdiction and not sustainable both on facts and in law.

6) The PCIT failed to appreciate that the findings in the impugned order were wrong, erroneous, incorrect, invalid, unjustified and not sustainable both on facts and in law and ought to have appreciated that the distinction between the concept of review and the concept of revision under the Act was completely over looked and brushed aside in as much as in this regard, ought to have appreciated that the review of the assessment order completed would be prohibited with in the scope of the powers of revision under Section 263 of the Act.

7) The PCIT failed to appreciate that the distinction between lack of enquiry and inadequate enquiry was also over looked before passing the revision order and ought to have appreciated that there could not be any presumption of lack of enquiry on the part of the Assessing Officer much less inadequate enquiry on the facts and in the circumstances of the case there by vitiating the revision order.

8) The PCIT erred in impliedly directing the Assessing Officer to disallow the claim of deduction under Section 80P of the Act to the tune of Rs.10,91,802/- forming part of the return of income filed in response to notice under Section 148 of the Act without assigning proper reasons and justification.

9) The PCIT failed to appreciate that there was complete scrutiny of facts referred to in the revision order while passing the re-assessment order passed by the JAO and hence ought to have appreciated that the decision to direct the JAO to revisit the issue should be reckoned as bad in law.

10) The PCIT failed to appreciate that there was no p