IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2526/Del/2024 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17)

Amarendra Financial Private Pr. CIT, Limited, (Central) KNP at Meerut.

14/5, Basement, Old Rajinder Vs.

Nagar, Shaheed Hemu Kalani Marg, New Delhi-110060.

PAN-AAHCA0512D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by Smt. Rano Jain, Adv., Ms. Mansi Jain, CA and Shri Pranshu Singhal, CA Department by Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT- DR Date of Hearing 08/07/2025 Date of Pronouncement 26/09/2025

O R D E R

PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM:

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), KNP at Meerut [PCIT, in short] passed u/s

263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 31.03.2024 for Assessment Year 2016-17.

2. Brief facts of the case are that return of income was e-filed by the assessee on 16.10.2016, declaring total income at Rs.28,69,100/-. A search and seizure action was carried on 11.10.2018 at the premises of the group company cases wherein it was found that certain information/documents were belonged to assessee and therefore, proceedings u/s 153C of the Act were initiated in the case of the assessee by way of issue of notice on 05.02.2021. In response, the assessee filed return of income on 19.02.2021 declaring same income as was declared in the return filed u/s 139(1) of the Act. The assessment was completed u/s 153C r.w.s 143(3) vide order dated 25.01.2021 wherein total income was computed at 2,26,46,000/- by making additions of Rs.1,97,76,912/- in the hands of the assessee on protective basis. Thereafter, the Ld. PCIT, Central initiated the proceedings u/s 263 by issuing of show cause notice dated 21.03.2024 and after considering the submissions of the assessee, the impugned revisionary order u/s 263 was passed on 31.03.2024 wherein the Ld. PCIT has set aside the assessment order passed by the AO and direct him to pass the order afresh after making proper enquiries and investigation and further observed that the addition should be made on substantive basis in the hands of the assessee.

3. Against the said order, present appeal is preferred by the assessee before the tribunal. Before us, assessee also take additional grounds of appeal which are admitted as they are purely legal in nature and requires no verification of facts by placing reliance on the judgment of hon’ble Supreme court in the case of NTPC Ltd. reported in 229 ITR 383(SC).

4. Grounds of appeal No.1 and 2 are general in nature need no adjudication.

5. In ground of appeal No.3, assessee has challenged the order passed u//s 263 without jurisdiction as the appeal was filed against the order sought to be revised challenging the same issues based on which the assessment order is held as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.

6. Before us, the Ld. AR of the assessee submits that assessee has filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) against the order of the AO passed u/s 153C r.w.s 143(3) dated 25.09.2021 on 01.11.202 in terms of e-filing acknowledgement No. 173644940011121, copy of the same is available in the paper book filed by assessee. Ld. AR further submits that in the said appeal, assessee has challenged the additions made u/s 68 and 69 of the Act on protective basis in the hands of assessee based on the seized material, therefore, Ld. PCIT(Central) has no jurisdiction to revise the said order u/s 263 of the Act. It is further submitted by ld. AR that the appeal before eld. CIT(A) is still pending for adjudication. She further submits that in the revision order passed u/s 263, Ld. PCIT directed the AO to make addition on “substantive basis” as against “protective basis” made by the AO. Thus, the ld. AR vehemently argued that Ld. PCIT has grossly erred in exercise the revisionary jurisdiction available u/s 263 of the Act in as much as the issues taken for holding the order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue are su