Ambika Agro Suppliers v. Income-tax Officer, Wd. 2(6), Jalgaon

95 ITD 326Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2005#8568 most cited

What is Ambika Agro Suppliers v. Income-tax Officer, Wd. 2(6), Jalgaon authority for?

An assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue if the Assessing Officer accepts the assessee's explanation without conducting proper enquiries into the genuineness of unsecured loans, debts, or other transactions. Mere filing of an explanation by the assessee is not sufficient, and the Assessing Officer must apply their mind and conduct verification.

13

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Ambika Agro Suppliers v. ITO · Section 263 · revision u/s 263 · erroneous and prejudicial · inadequate enquiry · lack of enquiry · assessment order erroneous · genuineness of unsecured loans · genuineness of debts · non-application of mind

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 144BSection 14ASection 10(38)Section 10AASection 115BBESection 119

Issues it is cited on

prejudicial to interest of revenueinadequate enquirymalabar industrialrevision u/s 263assessment order erroneoussection 263(1)lack of enquiryeligible businesserroneous and prejudicialchange of opinionlimited scrutinynon-application of mind

Judgments citing Ambika Agro Suppliers v. Income-tax Officer, Wd. 2(6), Jalgaon

Technoblast Mining Corporation, Raigarh vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 307/RPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.307/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Technoblast Mining Corporation 19, 2Nd Floor, Krishna Complex, Chaityana Nagar, Raigarh (C.G.)- 496 001 Pan: Aaeft5992Q

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

…O was erroneous was irresistible. Therefore, the High Court had rightly held that the exercise of the jurisdiction 6ythe Commissioner under section 263(1) was justified" And in the case of Ambika Agro Suppliers Vs. Income-tax Officer, Wd. 2(6), Jalgaon [2005] 95 ITD 326 (PUNE) IN THE ITAT PUNE BENCH wherein it was held "Commissioner set aside assessment order on grounds that Assessing Officer had not made proper enquiries in regard to (a) considerable increase in salary and account writing fees; (b) genuineness of debts; (c) genuineness of transactions on cash payment exceeding Rs.10,000, identity of payee and ci…

Eaton Technologies Private Limited, Pune vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1160/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Pune03 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Smt. Vishal KalraFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 40

…that line of enquiry. Thus, this was a case of non- enquiry and not inadequate enquiry. Therefore, the order of the Assessing Officer was certainly erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue." 4.3.3 In the case of Ambika Agro Suppliers vs. ITO, Jalgaon [(2005) 95 ITD 326 (Pune)], the Hon'ble ITAT held as under: "Mere filing of an explanation was not sufficient and at the same time, it could not be inferred that the Assessing Officer had applied his mind. There was also no proper verification in respect of creditors from whom the assessee 7 Eaton Technologies Private Limited had accepted unsecured loans. No spec…

Poonam Marwaha, Amritsar vs. ACIT DCIT Cen Cir, Amritsar

ITA 306/ASR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Vikram Singh Yadav & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 44ASection 69

…vide order passed u/s 143(3) on 17.09.2021 whereby the returned income of Rs. 5605590/- was duly accepted. 6.In the case law replied upon the A.O. has not made proper enquiry from the relatives on the contrary in extant case proper enquiry was made. 7 [2005] 95 ITD 326 (PUNE) IN THE ITAT PUNE BENCH Ambika Agro Suppliers v. Income- tax Officer, Wd. 2(6), Jalgaon Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Revision Of orders prejudicial to interest of revenue Assessment year 1995-96 Commissioner set aside assessment order on grounds that Assessing Officer had not made proper enquiries in regard to (a) considerable in…

M/S Poornachand Agrawal, Bilaspur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 104/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 104/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Pooranchand Agrawal C/O. Bagadia Enterprises, Near Shiv Talkies, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495001 Pan : Aaifp8483G

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

…igh Court had rightly held that 7 M/s. Pooranchand Agrawal Vs. Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 the exercise of the jurisdiction by the Commissioner under section 263(1) was justified" And in the case of Ambika Agro Suppliers Vs. Income-tax Officer, Wd. 2(6), Jalgaon [2005] 95 ITD 326 (PUNE) IN THE ITAT PUNE BENCH wherein it was held "Commissioner set aside assessment order on grounds that Assessing Officer had not made proper enquiries in regard to (a) considerable increase in salary and account writing fees; (b) genuineness of debts; (c) genuineness of transactions on cash payment exceeding Rs. 10,000, identity of payee and c…

Mumbai Postal Employees Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 17(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1051/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.1050 & 1051/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2015-16 & 2016-17) Mumbai Postal Employees Vs. Income Tax Officer, Co-Operative Credit Ward 17(2)(1) Society Limited, Gpo Room No. 115, 1 St Floor, Building, Fort, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To Mumbai – 400001 C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaajm0032G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Madhur Agarwal &For Respondent: Neena Jeph
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

…of an explanation was not sufficient if there is not further enquiries carried out: (i) Jeevan Investment & Finance (P) Ltd. 88 taxman.com 552 Bom) (ii) Gee Vee Enterprises V. Addl. CIT (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Del) (iii) Ambika Agro Supplies Vs. ITO Jalagon (2005) 95 ITD 326 (iv) Remeshchandra Maleram Varma Vs. DCIT (2002) 121 Taxman 29 (Ahd). (v) Mahalakshmi Ligor Promoters (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2013) 29 taxmann.com 74 and the assessing officer is directed to frame the assessment de novo after due verification. 5. During the course of appellate proceedings before us the ld. Counsel furnished paper book comprising detail…

Mumbai Postal Employees Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 17(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1050/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.1050 & 1051/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2015-16 & 2016-17) Mumbai Postal Employees Vs. Income Tax Officer, Co-Operative Credit Ward 17(2)(1) Society Limited, Gpo Room No. 115, 1 St Floor, Building, Fort, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To Mumbai – 400001 C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaajm0032G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Madhur Agarwal &For Respondent: Neena Jeph
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

…of an explanation was not sufficient if there is not further enquiries carried out: (i) Jeevan Investment & Finance (P) Ltd. 88 taxman.com 552 Bom) (ii) Gee Vee Enterprises V. Addl. CIT (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Del) (iii) Ambika Agro Supplies Vs. ITO Jalagon (2005) 95 ITD 326 (iv) Remeshchandra Maleram Varma Vs. DCIT (2002) 121 Taxman 29 (Ahd). (v) Mahalakshmi Ligor Promoters (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2013) 29 taxmann.com 74 and the assessing officer is directed to frame the assessment de novo after due verification. 5. During the course of appellate proceedings before us the ld. Counsel furnished paper book comprising detail…

Nahar Colours and Coatinhgs Private Limited, Udaipur vs. Principal Commissioner Ofincometax, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 140/JODH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur09 Aug 2023AY 2018-19
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 801ASection 80I

…icer. The Assessing Officer had simply obtained account extracts of these parties as appearing in the books of the assessee and accepted the loan as genuine. No confirmation letters were filed from these parties. (Ambika Agro Suppliers vs. ITO, Jalgaon [2005] 95 ITD 326 (Pune)) 5.2. The observation that full facts were brought to the notice of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) is also not correct in as 18 Nahar Colours and Coatings Private Ltd much as after giving statement with regard to the actual cost of the assets and depreciation claimed thereon. the assessing authority was bound to consid…

Sachin Ramdas Mohite, Satara vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax-3, Pune

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 395/PUN/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri G.D. Padmahshali, Am

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Sardar Singh Meena
Section 263Section 37Section 40A(3)Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JM AND SHRI G.D. PADMAHSHALI, AM I.T.A. No. 395/PUN/2019 : A.Y. 2013-14 Mr. Sachin Ramdas Mohite A/P Khandala, Dist. Satara 415 523 PAN: AMDPM 1310 D : Appellant Vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-3, Pune Respondent Appellant by : Shri M.K. Kulkarni Respondent by: Shri Sardar Singh Meena Date of hearing : 04-10-2022 Date of pronouncement : 10-10-2022 ORDER PER SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ; This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2013-14 arises against the Pr. CIT-3’s order No. Pn/Pr.CIT/263/MBR/2017-18/5000 dated 06-03-2018, in pr…

Shobha Ramchandra Chaudhari, Yawal vs. Principle Commissioner of Income-Tax - 1, Nashik

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

ITA 460/PUN/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.397/Pun/2021 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sardar Singh Meena
Section 143(3)Section 263

…ch an enquiry. The order is erroneous because such an enquiry has not been made and not because there is anything wrong with the order if all the facts stated therein are assumed to be correct”. In the case of Ambika Agro Suppliers vs. ITO, d) Jalgaon [2005] 95 ITD 326 (Pune), the Id. Tribunal held that" On a perusal of the assessment order, it was clear A.Y. : 2015-16 Ramchandra Vishnu Chaudhari & Shobha Ramchandra Chaudhari, that the Assessing Officer had not discussed nor even examined the above issues keeping in view the relevant provisions of law…….. However, the Assessing Officer had not conducted any enq…

Ramachandra Vishnu Chaudhari, Jalgaon vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax - 2, Nashik

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

ITA 397/PUN/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.397/Pun/2021 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sardar Singh Meena
Section 143(3)Section 263

…ch an enquiry. The order is erroneous because such an enquiry has not been made and not because there is anything wrong with the order if all the facts stated therein are assumed to be correct”. In the case of Ambika Agro Suppliers vs. ITO, d) Jalgaon [2005] 95 ITD 326 (Pune), the Id. Tribunal held that" On a perusal of the assessment order, it was clear A.Y. : 2015-16 Ramchandra Vishnu Chaudhari & Shobha Ramchandra Chaudhari, that the Assessing Officer had not discussed nor even examined the above issues keeping in view the relevant provisions of law…….. However, the Assessing Officer had not conducted any enq…

Sh. Surinder Pal Singh, Ludhiana vs. Pr.CIT-1, Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 57/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Jan 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…quor Promoters (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2013) 29 taxmann.com 70 • Dr. Rabindra Kumar Singh Vs. CIT(Central), Patna [2011] 131 ITD 39 (Ranchi) • Rajalakshmi Mill Ltd. Vs. ITO, Coimbatore (2009) 31 SOT 353 (Chennai)(SB) • Ambika Agro Suppliers Vs. ITO, Jalgaon [ 2005] 95 ITD 326 (Pune) • Rameshchandra Maleram Varma Vs. DCIT [2002] 121 Taxman 29 (Ahd.)(Mag.) • Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT [2000] 109 Taxman 66 (SC) • Deniel Merchants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (2017-TIOL-455-SC-IT) • Subhlakshmi Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 155 ITD 171(Kol) • Lakshmi Vilas Bank Vs. JCIT (2018-TIOL-2284-HC-MAD-IT) • PCIT Vs. Shri Braham Dev Gupta…

M/S Venkatesh Technokraft Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana vs. ITO, W-1(5), Ludhiana

ITA 1464/CHANDI/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Him Which Is Arbitrary & Unjustified. 3. That The Assessment Order Having Been Passed By The Assessing Officer After Due Application Of Mind & Taking Into Consideration The Various Replies, Material On Record & Books Of Account, The Action Resorted To By The Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Unwarranted & Uncalled For.

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sandip Dahiya, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 263

…• CIT Vs. Pushpa Devi (1987) 164 ITR 639 (Pat) • Lajja Wati Singhal, Smt. Vs CIT (1997) 226 ITR 527(All) • P.K. Fabrics Vs. Asstt. CIT(1998) 67 ITD 326 (Asr-Trib) • V. Narayanan Vs. Dy. CIT (2004) 88 ITD 43 (Chennai Trib) • Ambika Agro Suppliers Vs. ITO(2005) 95 ITD 326(Pune Trib) 4.9 Ld. CIT(A) held that the A.O. completed the assessment without making proper enquiry and that not only the A.O. had not made proper enquiry and had not verified the correctness and genuineness of the assessee’s explanation but he had also made the assessment order without proper application of mind and without properly appreciating…

M/S.Srl Diagnostics Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner Income Tax-7, Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds raised by assessee are allowed

ITA 1528/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri R. L. Negi, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1528/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan & Shri SFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan, DR
Section 14ASection 263Section 37

…lkata) iii) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vrs. CIT (2000) 109 taxmann.com 66 (SC) iv) CIT vrs. Bllarpur Industries Ltd. (2017) 85 taxmann.com 10 (Bom) v) Jagdish Kumar Gulati vrs. CIT (2004) 139 taxmann.com 369(All) vi) Ambika Agro Suppliers vrs. ITO (2005) 95 ITD 326 (Pune) 26. He submitted that from the above decisions, it clearly shows that AO must have inquired and applied his mind. 42 I.T.A. No. 1528/Mum/2018 M/s SRL Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd. Therefore in the given case, no such enquiry was made and nothing is coming out of assessment order that AO has applied his mind on this issue of allowing expenditure…

Ambika Agro Suppliers v. Income-tax Officer, Wd. 2(6), Jalgaon (95 ITD 326) — Cited in 13 Judgments | BharatTax