CIT v. Ashish Rajpal

320 ITR 674High Court2010#838 most cited

What is CIT v. Ashish Rajpal authority for?

When an assessment has been framed after an inquiry, the Commissioner cannot revise the order under Section 263 merely because the assessment order does not explicitly detail the queries raised and responses received. An order is not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue solely because the inquiry could have been more elaborate, provided the Assessing Officer applied their mind.

124

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Ashish Rajpal · Section 263 · revisional powers · erroneous assessment · prejudicial to interest of revenue · inadequate enquiry · lack of enquiry · application of mind · detailed enquiry · assessment order · Section 143(3)

Also reported as

180 Taxmann 62323 DTR 266

Sections most often in play

Section 263Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 143(2)Section 148Section 151Section 10(37)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 141section 282a(1)section 194lasection 145a(b)section 145binadequate enquirysection 45(5)section 57(iv)lack of enquirysection 56(2)(viii)section 263(1)prejudicial to interest of revenue

Judgments citing CIT v. Ashish Rajpal

Ashutosh Bhargava, Jaipur vs. Pr.CIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 20/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Jan 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271BSection 44ASection 54E

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “B”, JAIPUR Jh ,u-ds-lSuh] mik/;{k ,oa Jh lanhi x®lkÃa] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 20/JP/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17 cuke Shri Ashutosh Bhargava, Pr.CIT-2, Vs. B-801, C-22, Trimurty Dave Jaipur. Apartment, Jai Singh Highway, Banipark, Jaipur (Raj)-302016. PAN No.: AAPPB 4152 K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Adv) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-D…

Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Jaipur vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, all these three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 37/JPR/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 35 To 37/Jp/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2012-13 Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Cuke Pr.Cit-2, Vs. Limited, Jaipur. Village- Palsana Main Market, Palsana, Dist.- Sikar- 332402 (Raj) Pan No.: Aabap 8390 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-2, Jaipur All Dated 31/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2010-11 To 2012-13. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “A”, JAIPUR Jh lanhi x®lkÃa] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 35 to 37/JP/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 to 2012-13 Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti cuke Pr.CIT-2, Vs. Limited, Jaipur. Village- palsana Main Market, Palsana, Dist.- Sikar- 332402 (Raj) PAN No.: AABAP 8390 A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri B.K.…

Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Palasana vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, all these three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 36/JPR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 35 To 37/Jp/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2012-13 Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Cuke Pr.Cit-2, Vs. Limited, Jaipur. Village- Palsana Main Market, Palsana, Dist.- Sikar- 332402 (Raj) Pan No.: Aabap 8390 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-2, Jaipur All Dated 31/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2010-11 To 2012-13. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “A”, JAIPUR Jh lanhi x®lkÃa] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 35 to 37/JP/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 to 2012-13 Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti cuke Pr.CIT-2, Vs. Limited, Jaipur. Village- palsana Main Market, Palsana, Dist.- Sikar- 332402 (Raj) PAN No.: AABAP 8390 A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri B.K.…

Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Palsana vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, all these three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 35/JPR/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 35 To 37/Jp/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2012-13 Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Cuke Pr.Cit-2, Vs. Limited, Jaipur. Village- Palsana Main Market, Palsana, Dist.- Sikar- 332402 (Raj) Pan No.: Aabap 8390 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-2, Jaipur All Dated 31/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2010-11 To 2012-13. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “A”, JAIPUR Jh lanhi x®lkÃa] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 35 to 37/JP/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 to 2012-13 Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti cuke Pr.CIT-2, Vs. Limited, Jaipur. Village- palsana Main Market, Palsana, Dist.- Sikar- 332402 (Raj) PAN No.: AABAP 8390 A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri B.K.…

M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd, Bhopal vs. Pr CIT-1, Bhopal

ITA 158/IND/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore08 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2015-16

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 41(1)

…2019 – Para 18 h. Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Krishna Capbox (P) Ltd – [2015] 60 taxmann.com 243 i. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Vikas Polymers – [2010] 194 Taxman 57 j. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ashish Rajpal – [2009] 320 ITR 674 k. Hon’ble Mumbai Bench of ITAT in the case of Anil Shah – [2007] 162 Taxman 39 Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made, judicial precedents and documents on record, appeal of the assessee be allowed, quashing the impugned order passed u/s 263 of the Act. 7. Per contra Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently…

Sukhdev Chayal, Bikaner vs. PCIT-1, Jodhpur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 26/JODH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur07 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year: 2016-17 Sukhdev Chayal, Vs. Pr.Cit-1, Near Ratan Sagar Well, Jodhpur. Bikaner. Pan No. Afjpc 9250 J

Section 143(3)Section 263

…prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Our findings in this regard find support in the following judgments: DIT vs Jyoti Foundation reported in 357 ITR 388 (Del) ITO vs DG Housing Projects Ltd reported in 343 ITR 329 CIT vs Ashish Rajpal reported in 320 ITR 674 (Del) CIT vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd reported in 332 ITR 167 (Del) CIT vs R.K. Construction Co. reported in 313 ITR 65 (Guj) For these reasons, we are of the considered view that the assessment order is not the result of non-application of mind or any inadequate enquiry. We are also of the considered opinion that while passing the assessment order th…

M/S. Origami Cellulo Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 5, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 394/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Sept 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR-III)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)Section 92A(2)Section 92C

…fficer to conduct further enquiry to verify and find out whether the order passed is erroneous or not.” 17. The above view is also supported by the following decisions: - DIT vs Jyoti Foundation reported in 357 ITR 388 (Del) - CIT vs Ashish Rajpal reported in 320 ITR 674 (Del) - CIT vs R.K. Construction Co. reported in 313 ITR 65 (Guj) 18. Having broadly discussed and set out above the settled judicial principles for usurpation of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act, we now proceed to examine whether for the reasons set out in clauses (a) to (g) of the SCN, the Ld. Pr. CIT was able to justify his finding in the impug…

M/S Dsiidc Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT-03, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2674/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 801Section 80I

…DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 2673/DEL/2016 (A.Y 2011-12) I.T.A. No. 2674/DEL/2016 (A.Y 2012-13) (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) DSIIDC Ltd. Vs Pr. Commissioner of Income N-36, Bombay Life Building Tax-03 Connaught Circus New Delhi New Delhi AAACDE1257F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. H. P. Agarwal, CA Respondent by Sh. Sushma Singh, CIT DR Date of Hearing 06.07.2021 Date of Pronouncement 09.09.2021 ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM These two appeals are filed by the assessee against the separate orders dated 30/…

M/S Dsiidc Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT-03, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2673/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 801Section 80I

…DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 2673/DEL/2016 (A.Y 2011-12) I.T.A. No. 2674/DEL/2016 (A.Y 2012-13) (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) DSIIDC Ltd. Vs Pr. Commissioner of Income N-36, Bombay Life Building Tax-03 Connaught Circus New Delhi New Delhi AAACDE1257F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. H. P. Agarwal, CA Respondent by Sh. Sushma Singh, CIT DR Date of Hearing 06.07.2021 Date of Pronouncement 09.09.2021 ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM These two appeals are filed by the assessee against the separate orders dated 30/…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 1 (1), Bhopal vs. Shri Neeraj Mandloi, New Delhi

ITA 680/IND/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2009-10

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153Section 153C

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE HON’BLE MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND HON’BLE MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year 2009-10 DCIT-1(1) : Appellant Bhopal V/s Shri Neeraj Mandloi, 7/7 Bhagwandas Road, Mandi Road, New Delhi : Respondent PAN ADRPM0776H C.O.No.04/Ind/2020 Arising out of ITA No.680/Ind/2018 Assessment Year 2009-10 Shri Neeraj Mandloi, 7/7 Bhagwandas Road, Mandi Road, New Delhi : Appellant PAN ADRPM0776H V/s DCIT-1(1) : Respondent Shri Neeraj Mandloi ITA No.680/Ind/2020 & C.O.No.04/Ind/2020 Revenue by Shri…

M/S Radhishwari Devlopers P Ltd, Indore vs. Pr CIT -2 Indore, Indore

In the result, Assessee’s appeal in ITANo

ITA 493/IND/2018[13-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Jul 2021

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2013-14 M/S. Radhishwari Developers P. Ltd. (Now Known As R.C. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. ) Indore : Appellant Pan :Aafcr1916A V/S Pr. Cito-2 : Respondent Indore Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema Sr. Adv. With Gagan Tiwari & Piyush Parashar Advs. Revenue By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 20.07.2021

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…7 cr. which in view of ratio laid down in following decisions was not correct as the order u/s 263 of the Act cannot travel beyond the show cause notice:- a. CIT vs. Contimeters Electricals (P) Ltd. [2009] 317 ITR 249(Delhi) b. CIT vs. Ashish Rajpal [2010] 320 ITR 674 (Delhi) c. CIT vs. D.N. Dosani (2008) 280 ITR 275 10. Ld. Counsel for the assessee also submitted that ld. Pr. CIT has himself observed that the source of unsecured loans received from the alleged cash creditors was transferred from other companies to the cash creditors. So the source of source is through banking channel only. Most of the cas…

Shrimati Ravinder Bawa, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(3), Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 703/ASR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar14 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 703/Asr/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Smt. Ravinder Bawa Vs. Income Tax Officer, Prop. M/s Ramco Auto Ward-2(3), Industries, Preet Nagar, Jalandhar Jalandhar [PAN: AAMPB 2811N] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Surinder Mahajan, Sh. Kuldeep Bhagat, C.A. & Sh. Vikas Bhagat, Adv. Respondent by Sh Anupam Kant Garg CIT(DR) Date of Hearing 09.07.2021 Date of Pronouncement 14.07.2021 ORDER Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. This appeal of the assessee is direct…

Kailashchandra Khandelwal, Sendhwa vs. Pr. CIT -2, Indore

ITA 562/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble’ Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Shri Kailash Khandelwal Pr. Cit-2, Prop. M/S. Vikash Krishi Indore बनाम/ Seva Kendra, Bus Stand, Vs. Sendhwa, Barwani (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. Acmpk2991E Appellant By Shri Girish Agrawal & Shri Vijay Bansal, Nisha Lahoti, Ars Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit-Dr

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 44A

…td 20.03.2020: b. Hon’ble Jurisdictional Bench of Indore ITAT in the case of Narottam Mishra – [2015] 25 ITJ 206 c. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Vikas Polymers – [2010] 194 Taxman 57 d. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ashish Rajpal – [2009] 320 ITR 674 e. Hon’ble Mumbai Bench of ITAT in the case of Anil Shah – [2007] 162 Taxman 39 16. Application of mind by Ld. AO - In the instant case, Ld. AO during the assessment proceedings has made enquiries related to unsecured loand, loans and advances and interest thereon as is evident from the detailed questionnaire issued u/s 142(1) dated 31.08.2016. A…

M/S Ruchi J Oil Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT(A)Ujjain, Ujjain

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 176/IND/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2014-15

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)Section 92C

…u/s 263 of the Act.Thus, he issued the directions to verify rate of premium on shares issued by the company to M/s. Ruchi Soya Industries as well two non-resident companies. Kind attention is invited to the judgment in the case of CIT vs. Ashish Rajpal (2010) 320 ITR 674 (Del.) wherein it was held as under :- “Whether where notice issued by the Commissioner before commencing proceedings u/s 263 referred to four issues and final order passed referred to nine issues, revisional proceedings were vitiated as a result of beach of principals of natural justice – Held Yes”. It may please be appreciated that,when the p…

M/S. Kalinga Conduits Electricables (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT- 9, New Delhi

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

ITA 3287/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2010-11 Kalinga Conduits Electricables (P) Vs Pr. Cit-9, Ltd., New Delhi. 81/41, Punjabi Bagh West, New Delhi. Pan : Aacck5784H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate; Shri Rajiv Sabharwal, Ca; & Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca. Revenue By : Mrs. Aashna Paul, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.02.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.03.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23Rd March, 2017 Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act, 1961 By The Pcit, New Delhi, Relating To The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company & Filed Its Return Of Income On 30Th September, 2010 Declaring An Income Of Rs.5,940/-. The Said Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act. Subsequently, The Cit-Ii, New Delhi, Vide His Letter No. File 148/2012-13/2817 Dated 15Th March, 2013, Forwarded The Letter Of Investigation Ii, Delhi, Vide F. No.Dit (Inv.)-Ii/U/S 148/2012-13/197 Dated 12Th March, 2013 Giving Information About An Accommodation Entry Of Rs.40 Lakhs Received By The Assessee From M/S Victory Software Pvt. Ltd., Zenith Automotive Pvt. Ltd. & Humtum Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Based On The Above, The Ao Issued Notice U/S 148 After Recording The Reasons.

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Aashna Paul, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…, deduction, etc., it is incumbent upon the CIT not to exercise his suo motu revisional powers unless supported by adequate reasons for doing so.” 11. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ashish Rajpal, reported in 320 ITR 674, the ld. Counsel for the assessee drew the attention of the Bench to the following observations:- 10 “Moreover, it is apparent that, the assessment proceedings had also not culminated in a day but continued for a span of more than ten months. Therefore, it is evident that the learned officer had conducted proper enquiries before framing the asse…

Rungta Mines Ltd., Kolkata vs. Principal CIT - 1, Kolkata

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

ITA 1326/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Madhumita Roy)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)

…fficer to conduct further enquiry to verify and find out whether the order passed is erroneous or not.” 17. The above view is also supported by the following decisions: - DIT vs Jyoti Foundation reported in 357 ITR 388 (Del) - CIT vs Ashish Rajpal reported in 320 ITR 674 (Del) - CIT vs R.K. Construction Co. reported in 313 ITR 65 (Guj) 18. Having broadly discussed and set out above the settled judicial principles for usurpation of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act, we now proceed to examine whether for the reasons set out in clauses (a) to (g) of the SCN, the Ld. Pr. CIT was able to justify his finding in the impug…

Play Games 24 X 7 Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Pr. .CIT-(A) 13, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3910/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Shishir Dhamija
Section 263

…followed and assessee must be given an opportunity of being heard. In this regard, following case laws have been referred :- i) CIT v. Amitabh Bachchan (2016) 384 ITR 200 (SC); ii) CIT v. Electro House (1971) 82 ITR 824 (SC); iii) CIT v. Ashish Rajpal (2010) 320 ITR 674 (Del.); iv) G.K. Kabra (211 ITR 336) (AP); v) Chandan Wood Products (217 ITR 834) (MP); and, vi) A. Kannan v. State of Tamil Nadu (201 ITR 205) (Mad.) Furthermore, it has been pleaded that when the learned Commissioner revises the order on an entirely different ground, which has not been disclosed to the assessee, proper opportunity to the asses…

Satyanarayan Sharma, Indore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Indore

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

ITA 426/IND/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 154oSection 2Section 263Section 54F

…nor answer was reflected in assessment order, that would not, by itself, lead to conclusion that order of Assessing Officer called for interference and revision - Held, yes” [emphasis supplied] e. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ashish Rajpal – [2009] 320 ITR 674 – order pronounced on 14.05.2009 – HEAD NOTE – “Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Revision - Of orders prejudicial to interest of revenue - Assessment year 2002-03 - Whether merely because an assessment order does not refer to queries raised by Assessing Officer during course of scrutiny and response of assessee thereto, it can be said th…

Hindumal Balmukund Investment Co.Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax-1, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 562/PUN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Aug 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 562/Pun/2019 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Hindumal Balmukund Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. 2Nd Floor, Lohia Jain House, Bhandarkar Road, Pune-411 004 Pan : Aaach4226Q .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Pune. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri V.L. JainFor Respondent: Smt. Kesang V. Sherpa
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 4Section 80I

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “ए" न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE (Through Virtual Court) BEFORE SHRI R.S.SYAL, VP AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No. 562/PUN/2019 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Hindumal Balmukund Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. 2nd Floor, Lohia Jain House, Bhandarkar Road, Pune-411 004 PAN : AAACH4226Q .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/s. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Pune. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri V.L. Jain Revenue by : Smt. Kesang V. Sherpa सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 30.07.2020 घोषणा की तारीख / D…

Dr. Vinod Bhandari, Indore vs. The DCIT Cir. 2(1), Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 57/IND/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

…344 ITR 554, CIT vs. International Travel House Ltd. (Delhi H.C.), ITA Nos.350 & 66/Ind/2017 & ITANo.57/Ind/2019 Vinod Bhandari r. 343 ITR 329, CIT vs. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. (Delhi H.C.), s. 111 ITR 326, J.P. Srivastava & Sons Vs. CIT, (Allhd. H.C) t. 320 ITR 674, CIT vs. Ashish Rajpal (Delhi H.C.). At u. 323 ITR 632, CIT vs. Design and Automation Engineers (Bombay) P. Ltd. (Bombay H.C.), of v. 323 ITR 206, CIT vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd. w. 243 ITR 83, Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT(SC) x. 203 ITR 108 CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd., (Bombay H.C.) y. Mukesh Sharma v. CIT 25 ITJ 341 (Indore ITAT) 22.…