PCIT v. Reeta Lakhmani (2023)457 ITR 603 /291 Taxman 358 (Cal)(HC) PCIT v. Ritin Lakhmani (2023)457 ITR 603 /291 Taxman 358 (Cal)(HC) PCIT v.Jaikihan Lakhmani (2023)457 ITR 603 /291 Taxman 358 (Cal)(HC) PCIT v.Pravash Lakhmani (2023)457 ITR 603 /291 Taxman 358 (Cal)(HC) PCIT v. Rachit Lakhmani (2023)457 ITR 603 /291 Taxman 358 (Cal)(HC) PCIT v. Gopichand Lakhmani (2023)457 ITR 603 /291 Taxman 358 (Cal)(HC) PCIT v. Ravish Lakhmani (2023)457 ITR 603 /291 Taxman 358 (Cal)(HC)
S. 260A : Appeal-High Court-Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Capital gains-Penny stock companies-Tribunal quashed the revision order and also on merits-Revenue has challenged only on the ground on merits and not against quashing the revision order-Dismissing the appeal the Court held that a piecemeal challenge of the order passed by the Tribunal on one grounds on which relief was granted to assesseee was not maintainable. [S. 10(38), 45, 68, 254(1), 263]
Dismissing the appeal of the Revenue the Court held that the Tribunal set aside the order passed by the Principal Commissioner under section 263 of the Act. Thereafter, the Tribunal has proceeded to examine the merits of the matter and granted relief. The Tribunal had granted relief to the assessee on two grounds the first being that the exercise of power under section 263 of the Act was not in accordance with law. The Revenue had not raised any question on the finding of the Tribunal which showed that the Revenue had reconciled with the reasoning given by the learned Tribunal. Therefore, a piecemeal challenge to the order passed by the Tribunal on one of the grounds on which relief was granted to the assessee was not maintainable. Referred, PCIT v. Swati Bajaj (2022) 446 ITR 56 (Cal)(HC), Sinhotia Metals and Minerals Pvt Ltd (2023) 455 ITR 736 (Cal)(HC) AY.2014-15)