171 ITR 698 (All) CIT v. Goyal Private Family Specific Trust

Ganadhipati Construction Pvt Ltd, Patna vs. PCIT, Central, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

…of the revenue. We draw support from the following judicial pronouncements: i. 100 ITD 173 (Mum) Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy vs. ITO ii. 100 ITD 441 (Kol) Al-Haz Amir Hasan Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT iii. 203 ITR 108 (Bom) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd iv. 171 ITR 141 (MP) CIT vs. Ratlam Coal Ash Co 31.1. We also find that learned CIT has erred in holding the assessment order as erroneous, a condition precedent and that the fact for holding the order was erroneous he has not made any enquiry whatsoever but proceeded on the basis of his own opinion. Where more than one view is possible, the order cannot be said…

Ganadhipati Construction Private Limited, Patna vs. PCIT, Central, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

…of the revenue. We draw support from the following judicial pronouncements: i. 100 ITD 173 (Mum) Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy vs. ITO ii. 100 ITD 441 (Kol) Al-Haz Amir Hasan Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT iii. 203 ITR 108 (Bom) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd iv. 171 ITR 141 (MP) CIT vs. Ratlam Coal Ash Co 31.1. We also find that learned CIT has erred in holding the assessment order as erroneous, a condition precedent and that the fact for holding the order was erroneous he has not made any enquiry whatsoever but proceeded on the basis of his own opinion. Where more than one view is possible, the order cannot be said…

Nalanda Engicon Pvt. Ltd, Patna vs. Pr. CIT Central, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

…e assessment is drafted by the AO and generally issues which are accepted by the AO do not find place in the assessment order. Attention is also drawn to principles settled in following judicial pronouncements as well: b) CIT vs. Ratlam Coal Ash Co., (1988) 171 ITR 141 (MP) – revisional order was held not proper where the Tribunal took the view that in the facts of the case it could not be held that the Income-tax Officer had made the assessment without making proper inquiries. c) CIT vs. Shri Govindram Seksariya Charity Trust, (1987) 166 ITR 580 (MP) d) Venkatakrishna Rice Co. vs. CIT, (1987) 163 ITR 129 (Mad…

Nalanda Engicon Pvt. Ltd, Patna vs. Pr. CIT Central, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

…e assessment is drafted by the AO and generally issues which are accepted by the AO do not find place in the assessment order. Attention is also drawn to principles settled in following judicial pronouncements as well: b) CIT vs. Ratlam Coal Ash Co., (1988) 171 ITR 141 (MP) – revisional order was held not proper where the Tribunal took the view that in the facts of the case it could not be held that the Income-tax Officer had made the assessment without making proper inquiries. c) CIT vs. Shri Govindram Seksariya Charity Trust, (1987) 166 ITR 580 (MP) d) Venkatakrishna Rice Co. vs. CIT, (1987) 163 ITR 129 (Mad…

Nalanda Engicon Pvt. Ltd, Patna vs. Pr. CIT Central, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

…e assessment is drafted by the AO and generally issues which are accepted by the AO do not find place in the assessment order. Attention is also drawn to principles settled in following judicial pronouncements as well: b) CIT vs. Ratlam Coal Ash Co., (1988) 171 ITR 141 (MP) – revisional order was held not proper where the Tribunal took the view that in the facts of the case it could not be held that the Income-tax Officer had made the assessment without making proper inquiries. c) CIT vs. Shri Govindram Seksariya Charity Trust, (1987) 166 ITR 580 (MP) d) Venkatakrishna Rice Co. vs. CIT, (1987) 163 ITR 129 (Mad…

Nalanda Engicon Pvt. Ltd, Patna vs. Pr. CIT Central, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

…e assessment is drafted by the AO and generally issues which are accepted by the AO do not find place in the assessment order. Attention is also drawn to principles settled in following judicial pronouncements as well: b) CIT vs. Ratlam Coal Ash Co., (1988) 171 ITR 141 (MP) – revisional order was held not proper where the Tribunal took the view that in the facts of the case it could not be held that the Income-tax Officer had made the assessment without making proper inquiries. c) CIT vs. Shri Govindram Seksariya Charity Trust, (1987) 166 ITR 580 (MP) d) Venkatakrishna Rice Co. vs. CIT, (1987) 163 ITR 129 (Mad…

Nalanda Engicon Pvt. Ltd, Patna vs. Pr. CIT Central, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

…e assessment is drafted by the AO and generally issues which are accepted by the AO do not find place in the assessment order. Attention is also drawn to principles settled in following judicial pronouncements as well: b) CIT vs. Ratlam Coal Ash Co., (1988) 171 ITR 141 (MP) – revisional order was held not proper where the Tribunal took the view that in the facts of the case it could not be held that the Income-tax Officer had made the assessment without making proper inquiries. c) CIT vs. Shri Govindram Seksariya Charity Trust, (1987) 166 ITR 580 (MP) d) Venkatakrishna Rice Co. vs. CIT, (1987) 163 ITR 129 (Mad…

Nalanda Engicon Pvt. Ltd, Patna vs. Pr. CIT Central, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

…e assessment is drafted by the AO and generally issues which are accepted by the AO do not find place in the assessment order. Attention is also drawn to principles settled in following judicial pronouncements as well: b) CIT vs. Ratlam Coal Ash Co., (1988) 171 ITR 141 (MP) – revisional order was held not proper where the Tribunal took the view that in the facts of the case it could not be held that the Income-tax Officer had made the assessment without making proper inquiries. c) CIT vs. Shri Govindram Seksariya Charity Trust, (1987) 166 ITR 580 (MP) d) Venkatakrishna Rice Co. vs. CIT, (1987) 163 ITR 129 (Mad…

Nalanda Engicon Pvt. Ltd, Patna vs. Pr. CIT (Central), Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

…e assessment is drafted by the AO and generally issues which are accepted by the AO do not find place in the assessment order. Attention is also drawn to principles settled in following judicial pronouncements as well: b) CIT vs. Ratlam Coal Ash Co., (1988) 171 ITR 141 (MP) – revisional order was held not proper where the Tribunal took the view that in the facts of the case it could not be held that the Income-tax Officer had made the assessment without making proper inquiries. c) CIT vs. Shri Govindram Seksariya Charity Trust, (1987) 166 ITR 580 (MP) d) Venkatakrishna Rice Co. vs. CIT, (1987) 163 ITR 129 (Mad…

Gyan Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd, Varanasi vs. ACIT Central Circle-03, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 175 To 178/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 To 2018-19 Gyan Infrabuild Private Limited Principal Commissioner Of Awlespur, Kandwa Vs Income-Tax (Central), Patna Varanasi - 221006 [Pan: Aaecg0509Mc] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.C. Aggrawal, Sr. Adv. & Shri Manish Rastogi, Adv. Revenue By : Md. A.H. Chowdhary, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per, Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate & Identical Orders Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Patna (Hereinafter The “Ld. Pr. Cit”) Even Dt. 26/03/2022, Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2015-16 To 2018-19. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 14 Days In Filing Of These Appeals. There Is A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating Therein, The Reasons For The Delay. Relevant Content Of The Petition Dt. 08/06/2023 Is Extracted For Ready Reference:- “…….. 1. That We Had Received An Order U/S 263 Passed By Id Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle, Patna On 26.03.2022. 2

…of the revenue. We draw support from the following judicial pronouncements: i. 100 ITD 173 (Mum) Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy vs. ITO ii. 100 ITD 441 (Kol) Al-Haz Amir Hasan Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT iii. 203 ITR 108 (Bom) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd iv. 171 ITR 141 (MP) CIT vs. Ratlam Coal Ash Co 31.1. We also find that learned CIT has erred in holding the assessment order as erroneous, a condition precedent and that the fact for holding the order was erroneous he has not made any enquiry whatsoever but proceeded on the basis of his own opinion. Where more than one view is possible, the order cannot be said…

Gyan Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd, Varanasi vs. ACIT Central Circle-03, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 175 To 178/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 To 2018-19 Gyan Infrabuild Private Limited Principal Commissioner Of Awlespur, Kandwa Vs Income-Tax (Central), Patna Varanasi - 221006 [Pan: Aaecg0509Mc] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.C. Aggrawal, Sr. Adv. & Shri Manish Rastogi, Adv. Revenue By : Md. A.H. Chowdhary, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per, Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate & Identical Orders Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Patna (Hereinafter The “Ld. Pr. Cit”) Even Dt. 26/03/2022, Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2015-16 To 2018-19. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 14 Days In Filing Of These Appeals. There Is A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating Therein, The Reasons For The Delay. Relevant Content Of The Petition Dt. 08/06/2023 Is Extracted For Ready Reference:- “…….. 1. That We Had Received An Order U/S 263 Passed By Id Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle, Patna On 26.03.2022. 2

…of the revenue. We draw support from the following judicial pronouncements: i. 100 ITD 173 (Mum) Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy vs. ITO ii. 100 ITD 441 (Kol) Al-Haz Amir Hasan Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT iii. 203 ITR 108 (Bom) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd iv. 171 ITR 141 (MP) CIT vs. Ratlam Coal Ash Co 31.1. We also find that learned CIT has erred in holding the assessment order as erroneous, a condition precedent and that the fact for holding the order was erroneous he has not made any enquiry whatsoever but proceeded on the basis of his own opinion. Where more than one view is possible, the order cannot be said…

Gyan Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd, Varanasi vs. ACIT Central Circle-03, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 175 To 178/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 To 2018-19 Gyan Infrabuild Private Limited Principal Commissioner Of Awlespur, Kandwa Vs Income-Tax (Central), Patna Varanasi - 221006 [Pan: Aaecg0509Mc] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.C. Aggrawal, Sr. Adv. & Shri Manish Rastogi, Adv. Revenue By : Md. A.H. Chowdhary, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per, Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate & Identical Orders Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Patna (Hereinafter The “Ld. Pr. Cit”) Even Dt. 26/03/2022, Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2015-16 To 2018-19. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 14 Days In Filing Of These Appeals. There Is A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating Therein, The Reasons For The Delay. Relevant Content Of The Petition Dt. 08/06/2023 Is Extracted For Ready Reference:- “…….. 1. That We Had Received An Order U/S 263 Passed By Id Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle, Patna On 26.03.2022. 2

…of the revenue. We draw support from the following judicial pronouncements: i. 100 ITD 173 (Mum) Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy vs. ITO ii. 100 ITD 441 (Kol) Al-Haz Amir Hasan Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT iii. 203 ITR 108 (Bom) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd iv. 171 ITR 141 (MP) CIT vs. Ratlam Coal Ash Co 31.1. We also find that learned CIT has erred in holding the assessment order as erroneous, a condition precedent and that the fact for holding the order was erroneous he has not made any enquiry whatsoever but proceeded on the basis of his own opinion. Where more than one view is possible, the order cannot be said…

Gyan Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd, Varanasi vs. ACIT Central Circle-03, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 175 To 178/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 To 2018-19 Gyan Infrabuild Private Limited Principal Commissioner Of Awlespur, Kandwa Vs Income-Tax (Central), Patna Varanasi - 221006 [Pan: Aaecg0509Mc] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.C. Aggrawal, Sr. Adv. & Shri Manish Rastogi, Adv. Revenue By : Md. A.H. Chowdhary, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per, Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate & Identical Orders Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Patna (Hereinafter The “Ld. Pr. Cit”) Even Dt. 26/03/2022, Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2015-16 To 2018-19. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 14 Days In Filing Of These Appeals. There Is A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating Therein, The Reasons For The Delay. Relevant Content Of The Petition Dt. 08/06/2023 Is Extracted For Ready Reference:- “…….. 1. That We Had Received An Order U/S 263 Passed By Id Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle, Patna On 26.03.2022. 2

…of the revenue. We draw support from the following judicial pronouncements: i. 100 ITD 173 (Mum) Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy vs. ITO ii. 100 ITD 441 (Kol) Al-Haz Amir Hasan Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT iii. 203 ITR 108 (Bom) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd iv. 171 ITR 141 (MP) CIT vs. Ratlam Coal Ash Co 31.1. We also find that learned CIT has erred in holding the assessment order as erroneous, a condition precedent and that the fact for holding the order was erroneous he has not made any enquiry whatsoever but proceeded on the basis of his own opinion. Where more than one view is possible, the order cannot be said…

M/S. Abhinav Enterprises, Indore vs. PCIT-2, Indore

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Abhinav Enterprises, Pr. Commissioner Of 85, Income-Tax-2, Ramchandra Nagar Extn., Indore. बनाम/ Aerodrum Road, Vs. Indore. (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan : Aanfa6300Q Assessee By Shri S.S.Deshpande, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 11.03.2024

…nt-order cannot be said to be erroneous. Reliance is also placed on following decisions: (a) CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282 (b) CIT Vs. DLF Power 329 ITR 289 (Delhi) (c) CIT Vs. Govindram Sakseria Trust 166 ITR 580 (MP) (d) CIT Vs. Ratlam Coal Ash Co. 171 ITR 141 (MP) Page 14 of 23 M/s. Abhinav Enterprises, Indore. Vs. PCIT-2, Indore. ITA No. 339/Ind/2023 – AY 2015-16 (e) CIT Vs. Gabriel (India) Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bom) 15. While arguing, Ld. AR also submitted that in the show-cause notice the PCIT has wrongly taken the figure of purchases of Rs. 17.60 crores of ‘trading segment’ as pertaining to ‘co…