IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT &

MS PADMAVATHY S, ACCCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 3855/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19)

Aqua Tech Solutions Private PCIT (Central)-3, Mumbai Limited 441, 4^th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Vinayak Shramik Co-op. Society, C -41 to C-43, G Block, Bandra Vs.

Sr. No. 128/1B Paud Road, K urla Complex, Bandra (East), Kothrud, Pune Mumbai- Mumbai- 400051 PAN: AAGCA3182L Appellant) : Respondent Assessee by : Ms. Simran Dhawan &

Shri. Ravi Ganatra Revenue by : Shri. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT. DR Date of Hearing : 19.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 09.12.2025 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM:

This appeal by the assessee is against the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Mumbai-3 passed u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the 'Act') dated

31.03.2025 for AY 2018-19. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under –

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case and in law,

the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, erred on facts and in law in

invoking provisions of section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is

illegal, bad-in-law, barred by limitation and void for want of jurisdiction.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case and in law, the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, erred on facts and in law in passing order u/s 263 of the Act, directing the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh assessment order to disallow the impugned deduction claimed by the appellant u/s 801A(4) of Rs 8,29,50,836/- calling reassessment order passed on 31.03.2023 u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 as order sought to be revised', whereas the impugned deduction u/s 801A(4) was already examined and allowed in the previous assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 17.05.2021 after complete scrutiny under CASS, with reference to which, the limitation for revision u/s 263 already expired on 31.03.2024.

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case and in law, the revision u/s 263 of the Act for disallowing the deduction u/s 801A(4) of the Act claimed by the appellant, if any, would have been made for the original assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 17.05.2021 that became time barred on 31.03.2024 for any possible action u/s 263 and therefore the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, unlawfully, resorted to using his powers by initiating revision proceedings for the reassessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 31.03.2023, which was re-opened for a specific limited issue unrelated to the claim of said deduction u/s 801A(4) already examined by the Assessing Officer in previous order dated 17.05.2021.

4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case and in law, the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, erred on facts and in law by passing order u/s 263 of the Act directing the Assessing Officer to reframe the reassessment order dated 31.03.2023 after conducting 'necessary enquiries' ignoring the fact that the impugned reassessment order was consciously passed by the Assessing officer after in-depth examination, scrutiny and meticulous analysis of the material. information and details placed on record, which cannot be treated as improper enquiries by the Assessing Officer in absence of identification of any material/evidence by the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax on the assessment record that could be said to have been ignored by the Assessing Officer and therefore, Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, failed to appreciate that Explanation 2(a) u/s 263(1) does not justify revision of any order under the guise of endless and irrelevant enquiries without recording abject failure and lapse on part of Assessing Officer to establish both error and prejudice caused to revenue as the Assessing Officer had made adequate inquiries in this case and passed a speaking order.

5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the ap