ITAT Quashes PCIT’s Revision Order, Ruling Second Opinion Not Allowed Under Section 263:

ITAT held that Section 263 cannot be invoked merely on a difference of opinion and set aside the PCIT’s revision order, granting relief to the assessee company.
ITAT Favours Company After Finding AO Properly Examined Case

ITAT Quashes PCIT’s Revision Order, Ruling Second Opinion Not Allowed Under Section 263
The appeal was filed by a company, Makson Pharmaceuticals (India) Private Limited, before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad, challenging an order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), Ahmedabad-3, on March 31, 2025. The case is related to the assessment year 2020-21 and was decided on December 12, 2025.
The company filed its income tax return (ITR) for the aforesaid assessment year, declaring the total income of Rs. 17,32,75,190. During the scrutiny assessment, the Assessing Officer (AO) declared the total income of the company at Rs. 176,163,250 and made a disallowance of Rs. 2,888,059 under section 37(1) of the Act. Later, PCIT noticed that the assessee company had invested in a partnership firm amounting to Rs. 5.95 crore as of March 31, 2019, and Rs. 1.7 crore as of March 31, 2020. In due course, profits and losses lead to debits of various expenses.
As per the PCIT, the assessing officer did not properly examine issues like extra depreciation claimed on residential buildings, excess depreciation on plant and machinery, no disallowance under Section 14A for exempt income, and deduction under Section 80G claimed on CSR-related donations. In conclusion, the PCIT set aside the original assessment order dated September 20, 2022 (passed under Section 143(3) read with 144B) vide order dated March 31, 2025, passed under Section 263, calling it erroneous and harmful to revenue interests. Directed the AO to pass a fresh assessment order.
The assessee company thereafter filed an appeal before the tribunal, where it argued that all these issues were already examined by the AO during assessment, and detailed replies were submitted by them in response to the notices issued. Additionally, the same issues had arisen in earlier years, too, and there the tribunal also decided in the company’s favour. The assessee claimed that the PCIT is only giving a second opinion, which is not permitted under Section 263.
The tribunal heard the arguments of both sides and endorsed the arguments served by the assessee company. The assessing officer had already deeply examined and verified all the issues. supported the assessee's argument that Section 263 cannot be used just because PCIT disagrees with the AO. In the final result, the tribunal set aside the PCIT's order dated March 31, 2025, and restored the initial assessment. Appeal allowed in favour of the assessee.
About Author

Saloni Kumari
Content Writer
Saloni is a Content Writer with 2+ years of experience at studycafe.in. She writes legal, taxation, and finance related content including GST, Income Tax etc. Skilled in translating complex judicial pronouncements and regulatory developments into clear, and reader-friendly articles. Experienced in covering judgements of ITAT, High Court, GSTAT, and news related to Income Tax, GST, and corporate law. She can be reached at [email protected].
Saloni is a Content Writer with 2+ years of experience at studycafe.in. She writes legal, taxation, and finance related content including GST, Income Tax etc. Skilled in translating complex judicial pronouncements and regulatory developments into clear, and reader-friendly articles. Experienced in covering judgements of ITAT, High Court, GSTAT, and news related to Income Tax, GST, and corporate law. She can be reached at [email protected].
StudyCafe
Delhi, Delhi, India
2461My Recent Articles
- Income Tax Dept Introduces Additional Field To Disclose Secondary Address in All ITR Forms for AY 2026-27
- ITAT Strikes Down Entire Reassessment Proceedings Over Unsigned Section 148 NoticePremium
- ITAT Deletes Section 271B Penalty, Holds Form 3CD Reporting Error Covered Under Reasonable CausePremium
- A Taxpayer Cannot Be Forced to Pay GST Twice Merely Because Tax Paid Under Wrong Head, Rules High CourtPremium
- ITAT Restores Appeal After Condoning 1,929-Day Delay Caused by Director’s Jail Term and IllnessPremium
Up Next
Loading suggestions…
Recent Posts

All Posts

Tags
Recent Posts

All Posts








