PCIT v. Axis Bank Ltd

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: See packaged judgment

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Depreciation and revision: whether disclosure before CIT(A) and accounting changes justify revisional interference with assessment.
• What factual, statutory and procedural conditions control the relief?
• How does the operative order apply to the parties and the challenged proceeding?

Material facts and procedural background

================================================================ THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 , AHMEDABAD Versus AXIS BANK LTD. ================================================================ Appearance: MR.VARUN K.PATEL(3802) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR RK PATEL, SR COUNSEL assisted by MR DARSHAN R PATEL(8486) for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI Date : 11/07/2023 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI)

1. The appellant has filed present Tax Appeal under

appellant and learned Senior Counsel Mr. R.K. Patel

3. The learned advocate for the appellant has proposed

4. The learned advocate for the appellant has

Appellant / assessee submissions

2. Heard learned counsel Mr. Varun K. Patel for the

assisted by learned advocate Mr. Darshan Patel for

3. The learned advocate for the appellant has proposed

4. The learned advocate for the appellant has

Revenue / respondent submissions

“7. As against this, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent pointed out that the language of Section 271(1)(c) had to be strictly construed, this being a taxing statute and more particularly the one providing for penalty. It was pointed out that unless the wording directly covered the assessee and the fact situation herein, there could not be any penalty under the Act. It was pointed out that there was no concealment or any inaccurate particulars regarding the income were submitted in the Return. Section 271(1)(c) is as under:-

A glance at this provision would suggest that in order to be covered, there has to be concealment of the particulars of the income of the assessee. Secondly, the assessee must have furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. Present is not the case of concealment of the income. That is not the case of the Revenue either. However, the Learned Counsel for Revenue suggested that by making incorrect claim for the expenditure on interest, the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of the income. As per Law Lexicon, the meaning of the word "particular" is a detail or details (in plural sense); the details of a claim, or the separate items of an account. Therefore, the word "particulars" used in the Section 271(1)(c) would embrace the meaning of the details of the claim made. It is an admitted position in the present case that no information given in the Return was found to be incorrect or inaccurate. It is not as if any statement made or any detail supplied was found to be factually incorrect. Hence, at least, prima facie, the assessee cannot be held guilty of furnishing

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

13. We have considered the rival submissions of both

Operative decision and relief

The result is recorded as Revenue appeal dismissed without costs. The exact relief and qualifications are controlled by the final operative paragraphs of the packaged judgment.

Ratio and legal principle

• The packaged judgment addresses Depreciation and revision: whether disclosure before CIT(A) and accounting changes justify revisional interference with assessment. The precise proposition must be read with the Court/Tribunal's reasoning and operative directions.
• Reliance depends on matching the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and material evidence recorded in the judgment.

Why this judgment matters

This decision is relevant to practitioners and affected parties dealing with depreciation and revision: whether disclosure before cit(a) and accounting changes justify revisional interference with assessment. Its value lies in showing how the adjudicating forum connected the applicable rule to the proved facts and procedural posture.

Practitioner action points

• Match the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and decisive evidence before relying on the result.
• Verify current appellate, review and SLP history and any later amendment or controlling authority.
• Attach the complete judgment to the working paper or filing and cite the paragraph/page supporting the proposition.

Does this case match your facts?

Section / provision impact

• See the statutory provisions identified in the packaged judgment.

Case network

Similar issue / useful comparison

• Parth Developers vs. Pr. CIT - ITAT Indore
• OERLIKON BALZERS COATING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA & ANR - Gujarat High Court
• UCB India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT - Supreme Court of India

Different outcome / possible distinction

• Ajay Parasmal Kothari v. ITO - Partly allowed
• SPL Labs India Pvt ltd Vs ITO,Circle 6 Bangalore - Quashed / set aside

Full judgment and source control

Read / download packaged judgment record

Source class: Sanitized local full-judgment copy; official primary replacement pending · Repository status: Later-history status: verification on hold pending source confirmation