IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR BEFORE SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A.Y.2016-17 Smt Vandana Saraogi vs. Principal Commissioner Prop. Mahalaxmi Industries, Ghantaghar, of Income Tax (Central)

Hanumanganj Ward, Katni-483222. Bhopal at Jabalpur Director General of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhawan, 48, Arera Hills, Bhopal-462011.

PAN: ASIPS2301L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by: Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, C.A.

Revenue by: Sh. Shravan Kumar Meena, CIT- DR Date of hearing: 18.09.2025 Date of pronouncement: 12.12.2025

O R D E R

PER NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld.

short) setting aside the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s PCIT(Central), Bhopal at Jabalpur u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for 153A read with section 143(3) of the Act dated 22.04.2021. The grounds of appeal are as under:-

“(1) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CIT) under Section 263 of the Act is bad, both in the eyes of law and on facts.

(2) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by learned Pr. CIT under section 263 of the Act is bad in lad in the eyes of law and on facts, having been passed without giving assessee an opportunity of being heard on adverse opinion drawn from the reply submitted to notice under section 263 in violation of principle of natural justice.

3 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Pr.CIT has erred both on facts and in law assuming jurisdiction under section 263 in the absence of twin conditions of the order passed by the A.O. being erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, being satisfied as was held in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v/s CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC).

4. On the facts and | circumstances: of the case, the order passed by the learned Pr.CIT assuming jurisdiction under section 263 is bad in law having been initiated at the instance of audit objection only and merely on presumption and assumptions and ignoring the important fact that property in relevance has duly been offered to tax.

5. The Id. Pr. CIT (Central), Bhopal seriously erred’ in law as well as on the facts of the case in wrongly setting the assessment order dated 22.04.2021 despite there being complete application of mind by the AO on the subjected issues including sale and purchase of | properties in block period.

6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Pr.CIT has erred both on facts and in law in ignoring the fact that the proceeding under Section 263 cannot be used for substituting opinion of the A.O. by that of the PCIT.

7 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by Pr. CIT | under section 263 of the unsustainable as power to revise can be invoked in the case of lack of enquiry, not in the case of inadequate enquiry.

8 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Pr. CIT has erred both on facts and in law in setting aside the matter to the file of the AO without giving a finding as to the error and prejudice caused to the revenue by the assessment order(as such NIL); and as such the order passed is bad in law and liable to be quashed.

9. On the facts and circumstances of the case, Pr CIT has erred both on facts and in law in setting aside the issue. of correct sale consideration of Rs. 20,51,589/- to the file of the Ld AO without properly appreciating the explanation of assessee given during the assessment proceedings brought on record to prove that AO has deeply examined during, assessment proceedings itself.

10. The revision order dated 29.03.2024 is bad in law for other reasons also hence may kindly be cancelled.”

2. The facts of the case are that during examination of the assessment records of the aforesaid case, the Ld. PCIT noticed that the assessee had declared capital gain in the assessment year 2016-17 against the sale