CIT v. Bhagat Shyam & Co.

188 ITR 608High Court1991#10291 most cited

What is CIT v. Bhagat Shyam & Co. authority for?

For a revision under Section 263 to be valid, the Commissioner must independently apply their mind to the material placed before them and be satisfied that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue, even if the Assessing Officer brought the material to their notice.

10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Bhagat Shyam & Co. · Section 263 · revision power · Commissioner's mind · erroneous and prejudicial · assessment order · ITO material · Assessing Officer proposal · record examination

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 263Section 41

Issues it is cited on

section 33bassessment order erroneouserroneous and prejudicialsection 154section 263section 26appeal before the tribunalsection 147personsection 143(3)indiabusiness

Judgments citing CIT v. Bhagat Shyam & Co.

Hotel Sai Siddhi Pvt. Ltd., Nashik vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax-1, Nashik

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

ITA 687/PUN/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Hotel Sai Siddhi Pvt. Ltd. Pcit-1, Nashik 3/4, Poush Sector, Lekha Nagar, Vs. Mumbai Agra Road, Nashik – 422009 Pan: Aabch4310G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanket Joshi Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 08-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-01-2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 263

…is of proposal sent by the Assessing Officer. He submitted that the Tribunal in the case of Volkswagen India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. PCIT (supra) has distinguished the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bhagat Shyam & Co. reported in (1991) 188 ITR 608 (Allahabad) and the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Smt. Sumitra Devi Khirwal vs. CIT reported in (1972) 84 ITR 26 (Cal) relied on by the Ld. DR and held that the 263 proceedings initiated on the basis of the proposal sent by the Assessing Officer is not in accordance with law. Referring to the decision of the Bangalore Ben…

ITO, Ward- 44(2), New Delhi vs. Threepence Craft, New Delhi

ITA 5995/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 195(2)Section 263

…ing the record of any proceedings under this Act and thereafter satisfying that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, are satisfied. 8. The second judgment relied by the ld. DR is CIT Vs. Bhagat Shyam & Co. (1991) 188 ITR 608 (Allahabad). In that case also, the assessee contended that the ITO placed certain information or material before the Commissioner and hence, the revision u/s.263 was not justified. Repelling such a contention, the Hon'ble High Court held that: "There is no bar to the ITO bringing that material to the notice of the Commissioner. What cannot, howe…

Threepence Craft, New Delhi vs. CIT- IX, New Delhi

ITA 2234/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 195(2)Section 263

…ing the record of any proceedings under this Act and thereafter satisfying that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, are satisfied. 8. The second judgment relied by the ld. DR is CIT Vs. Bhagat Shyam & Co. (1991) 188 ITR 608 (Allahabad). In that case also, the assessee contended that the ITO placed certain information or material before the Commissioner and hence, the revision u/s.263 was not justified. Repelling such a contention, the Hon'ble High Court held that: "There is no bar to the ITO bringing that material to the notice of the Commissioner. What cannot, howe…

Volkswagen India Private Limited, Pune vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax-4, Pune

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 148/PUN/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethtra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri M.M. Chate
Section 263

…the AO, then it cannot be said that the twin conditions of examining the record of any proceedings under this Act and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, are satisfied. 8. The second judgment relied by the ld. DR is CIT Vs. Bhagat Shyam & Co. (1991) 188 ITR 608 (Allahabad). In that case also, the assessee contended that the ITO placed certain information or material before the Commissioner and hence, the revision u/s.263 was not justified. Repelling such a contention, the Hon’ble High Court held that: “There is no bar to the ITO bringing that material to the notice of the Commissioner. What cannot,…

Volkswagen India Private Limited, Pune vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax-4, Pune

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 147/PUN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethtra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri M.M. Chate
Section 263

…the AO, then it cannot be said that the twin conditions of examining the record of any proceedings under this Act and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, are satisfied. 8. The second judgment relied by the ld. DR is CIT Vs. Bhagat Shyam & Co. (1991) 188 ITR 608 (Allahabad). In that case also, the assessee contended that the ITO placed certain information or material before the Commissioner and hence, the revision u/s.263 was not justified. Repelling such a contention, the Hon’ble High Court held that: “There is no bar to the ITO bringing that material to the notice of the Commissioner. What cannot,…

Shri Rajinder Singh, Shimla vs. Pr.CIT-1, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 28/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt.Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Rajinder Singh बनाम Pr. Cit-1 M/S R.S. Traders, Gunj Road Chandigarh Shimla

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ioner had complied with these provisions and, as such, his order ought to be sustained.” 4.2 The aforesaid principle was reiterated and more elaborately discussed subsequently by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in case of CIT Vs. Bhagat Shyam And Co. (1991) 188 ITR 608 in the context of section 263 of the Act where it was held that there is no bar to the Income-tax Officer bringing material to the notice of the Commissioner of Income-tax for initiation of revision proceedings but at the same time, the Commissioner must apply his mind to the material placed before him and satisfy himself that it is a case where…

Goldmohur Design and Apparel Park Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. Comm. of Income Tax - 7, Mumbai

ITA 3971/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Soodgoldmohar Design & Pr. Cit-7 R. No. 628, 6Th Floor, Apparel Park Ltd. 145, Goldmohar Mill, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Dada Saheb Phalke Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Dadar (E), Mumbai- 400 014 Pan – Aadcg1613M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: Shri. T. Kipgen &
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ere raised by the assessee in the course of the revisional proceedings, the ld. A.R had drawn our attention to the following judicial pronouncements: (i) J.P. Srivastava & Sons Ltd. Vs. CIT- [(1978) 111 ITR 326 (All)]. (ii) CIT Vs. Bhagat Shyam & Co. –[(1991) 188 ITR 608, 610 (All)] (iii) Udaipur Mineral Development Syndicate Vs. ITO- [(1990) 35 ITD 172 (JP)] (iv) Orient (Goa) Ltd. Vs. ACIT-[ (1998) 66 ITD 479 (Pune)] (v) Pankaj Dhruve Vs. ITO- [(1996) 86 Taxman 121 (Ahd) (Mag)] (vi) CIT Vs. Sakthi Charities – [ (2000) 244 ITR 226 (Mad)] (vii) M. Rajashekhara Murthi Vs. Eleventh Ito-[(1984) 7 ITD 273 (Bang)] (vii…

Hi-Rock Construction Co., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 32, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4327/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Hi Rock Construction Co. Pr. Cit -32 C-11, 2Nd Floor, 903, A, Gurukul Tower, Cst No. 890, J. S. Road, Dahisar (W), Vs. Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Mumbai. Bandra Kurla Complex, Pan: Aaffh6403B Mumbai. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi with Shri Shubham Rathi (AR)For Respondent: Shri B. Srinivas (CIT-DR)
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)

…assessee, it could not be said that the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decisions of J.P. Srivastava & Sons Ltd. Vs. CIT [(1978) 111 ITR 326 (All)], CIT vs. Bhagat Shyam & Co. [(1991) 188 ITR 608 (All)], Udaipur Mineral Development Syndicate vs. ITO [(1990) 35 ITD 172 (JP)], Orient (Goa) Ltd. Vs. ACIT [(1998) 66 ITD 479 (Pune)] & Pankaj Dhruve vs. ITO [(1996) 86 Taxman 121 (Ahd) (Mag)]. 22. On the other hand, the ld. DR for the revenue submits that the AO has neither examined the issue nor raised any query while passing the assessment…

Jitinder Singh Chadha, New Delhi vs. Prcit-18, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2732/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiita No. 2732/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Mr. Jitindar Singh Chadha, Vs Pr. Cit-18, C-266, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110024 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpc6181D Assessee By : Sh. R. S. Ahuja, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Kumar Hrishikesh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.03.2018 Of Ld. Pr. Cit-18, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. R. S. Ahuja, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Kumar Hrishikesh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 55A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’ble Vice President and Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Judicial Member ITA No. 2732/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Mr. Jitindar Singh Chadha, Vs Pr. CIT-18, C-266, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110024 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AABPC6181D Assessee by : Sh. R. S. Ahuja, CA Revenue by : Sh. Kumar Hrishikesh, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 04.12.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 31.12.2018 ORDER Per N. K. Saini, Vice President: This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 31.03.2018 of ld. Pr. CIT-18, New De…

Aakriti Landcon P. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Principal CIT, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 433/JPR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: The Merit Of The Matter Which Has Been Put Up For Our Consideration.

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sayyat Nasir Ali (CIT)
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…Commissioner had complied with these provisions and, as such, his order ought to be sustained.” M/s Aakriti Landcon P. Ltd Kota vs. Pr. CIT, Kota 6.4 Further, the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs Bhagat Shyam & Co [1991] 188 ITR 608 (All) has held as under: “5. We agree with Mr. Katju to this extent that merely because the ITO placed certain information or material before the Commissioner and the Commissioner invoked the power under section 263, it cannot be said that the Commissioner has initiated the proceeding without applying his mind or that he has abdicated his functio…

CIT v. Bhagat Shyam & Co. (188 ITR 608) — Cited in 10 Judgments | BharatTax