The issue of disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) was already pending adjudication before the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAPC), the Principal Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to invoke Section 263 in view of clause (c) of Explanation 1 to Section 263. Accordingly, the revisionary order under Section 263 was to be set aside.(AY. 2013-14)
Krishnan Saravanan v. PCIT [2025] 210 ITD 567 (Chennai)(Trib.)
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-
The NFAP was already adjudicating the disallowance of transport charges u/s. 40(a)(ia), the PCIT had no jurisdiction to revise the order.[S.40(a)(ia)]
Leave a Reply