CIT v. Bhagwan Dass

272 ITR 367High Court2005#3668 most cited

What is CIT v. Bhagwan Dass authority for?

An assessment order cannot be cancelled under section 263 solely on the grounds of inadequate enquiry or lack of application of mind by the Assessing Officer if the view taken was tenable in law and on facts.

32

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Bhagwan Dass · section 263 · inadequate enquiry · lack of enquiry · assessment order erroneous · non-application of mind · prejudicial to interest of revenue · revision u/s 263 · section 263(1) · assessment order

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 153ASection 54BSection 10AASection 10B

Issues it is cited on

section 80hhc(3)inadequate enquiryrevision u/s 263malabar industrialprejudicial to interest of revenuesection 263(1)lack of enquirysection 91assessment order erroneoussection 80hhcdeduction u/s 80ianon-application of mind

Judgments citing CIT v. Bhagwan Dass

Shri Saleem Parvez, Bhopal vs. PCIT -1, Bhopal

In the result this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 248/IND/2021[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Indore09 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani(Virtual Hearing) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Saleem Parvez Pcit-1 Bhopal Bhopal बनाम/ P.A.No. Acyps8006L Vs. Appellant (Assessee) Respondent (Revenue) Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpandey, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 22 / 02 / 2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09 /03/ 2022 आदेश / O R D E R

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

…2. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) - Hon'ble Supreme court has held that non-application of mind by the assessing authority on a particular issue, renders the assessment order susceptible to revision. 3. CIT v. Bhagwan Das (2005) 272 ITR 367 (All.) (HC) – the Hon'ble High Court has held that non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 4. Pratap Footwear v. ACIT (2003) SOT 638 (Jabalpur) Trib. - the Hon'ble Tribunal has held that non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer was prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 5. CIT vs…

M/S Basti Wine Co. (English), Kanpur vs. Astt. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Kanpur

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

ITA 683/LKW/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow02 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 263

…bility of these expenses which renders the order passed by the A.O is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue." The order has been passed without application of mind. The Hon'ble jun'sdictional High Court in the case of C/7" v. Bhagwan Das 12005] 272 ITR 367 (Ail.)(HC), held I.T.A. No.683/Lkw/2018 Assessment Year:2014-15 13 that non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In view of the above facts, it is clear that the assessment order passed by AO is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Accordingly, the order u/s!43(…

M/S Basti Wine Co. (English), Kanpur vs. Astt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur

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

ITA 409/LKW/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2013-14 M/S Basti Wine Co. (English), Vs. Pr.C.I.T.-I, 24/4, The Mall, Kanpur. Kanpur. Pan:Aaaab4224A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44A

…bility of these expenses which renders the order passed by the A.O is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue." The order has been passed without application of mind. The Hon'ble jun'sdictional High Court in the case of C/7" v. Bhagwan Das 12005] 272 ITR 367 (Ail.)(HC), held that non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In view of the above facts, it is clear that the assessment order passed by AO is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Accordingly, the order u/s!43(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 passed by the assessing off…

Reliance Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT (PCIT)-3, Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 578/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2021AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 263

…view then such an assessment order could not be cancelled u/s 263 unless it was shown that the view was not tenable either in law or on facts. 6. The Ld. CIT-DR has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT V/s Bhagwan Dass (272 ITR 367) which is a case wherein it was held that the order was passed without application of mind by Ld. AO. The same is not the case here. The case law of Chennai Tribunal in Bharat Overseas Bank V/s CIT (152 TTJ 546) was a similar case wherein no inquiry was made by Ld.AO during the course of assessment proceedings. Therefore, these case laws are dist…

Cuttack Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Cuttack vs. Principal CIT, Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 184/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack21 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri N.R.Biswal, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 36(1)(via)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2014-15 Cuttack Central Co-operative Vs. Pr. CIT, Cuttack Bank Ltd., Nimchouri, Chandini Chowk, Cuttack PAN/GIR No.AAOPD 1277 G (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri N.R.Biswal, AR Revenue by : Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT, DR Date of final Hearing : 21/10/2020 Date of Pronouncement : 22 /1/2021 O R D E R Per C.M.Garg,JM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed under section 263 of the Income tax Act, (in short ‘Th…

M/S. Bhandari Hospital and Research Centre, Indore vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Indore

ITA 355/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Bhandari Hospital & Pr. Cit-(I) Research Centre, Gf-21 & Indore बनाम/ 22, Opp. Meghdoot Garden, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aadfb8151A

Section 131(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 263Section 35A

…ion III ITR 312 (Gujarat) 2. Further reliance is here by placed or following decisions of Supreme Court, High Courts and Tribunal, the list and gist of decisions are submitted now. 1 CIT V/s Amitabh Bachan Civil Appeal No. 5009 of 2016 CIT V/s Bhagwan Das 2 272 ITR 367 (Allahabad) Shubhlakshmi Vanijya (P) Ltd. V/s CIT-1 3 172 TTJ 721 (Kalkata) 4 Jublee Commotrade [ITA No.355/Ind/2017] [Bhandari Hospital & Research Centre] 5 Novapan India Ltd. vs Collector of Central 3556 of 1984 (SC) Excise 6 Rajmandir Estates Pvt. Ltd. vs PCIT -III GA No 509 of2016 (HC) Kalkata (1)P.G. Infrastructure & Service Pvt. Ltd. 7 IT…

Ankush Garg, Rohtak vs. CIT, Rohtak

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2287/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 143(3)Section 263

…was prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The term "prejudice" contemplated under section 263 is prejudice to the income-tax administration as a whole. Pratap Footwear v. ACIT [2003] SOT 638 (Jabalpur) (Trib.).ln the case of CIT v. Bhagwan Das [2005] 272 ITR 367 (AII.)(HC), the High Court held that non application of mind by the Assessing Officer was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Reliance on certain judgments by Revenue: PVS Multiplex India Ltd V CIT 815 Taxpundit 50 If we analyse facts and circumstances of the present case, wherein the Assessing Officer conducted the assessment proceeding…

Durgesh Autofin P.Ltd, Bijnor vs. Prcit, Muzaffarnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2539/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 2539/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Durgesh Autofin P. Ltd., Vs Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, C/O Sh. Pankaj Kumar, Director, Muzaffarnagar-251002 S/O Late Sh. Tejpal Singh, Mandi Kotla, Near Nehru Murti, Chandpur, Bijnot, Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccd0768P Assessee By : Sh. Vivek Bansal, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Rachna Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.03.2018 Of Ld. Pr. Cit, Muzaffarnagar U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act).

For Appellant: Sh. Vivek Bansal, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 269SSection 271DSection 41(1)Section 68

…in so far as it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " Dawjee Dadabhoy and Co. Vs S.P. Jain 31 ITR 872 (Cal.) " Pratap Footwear Vs ACIT (2003) SOT 638 (Jabalpur- Trib.) " CIT Vs Bhagwan Das (2005) 272 ITR 367 (All.) " PVS Multiplex India Ltd. Vs CIT 815 Taxpundit 50 " CIT Vs Nagesh Knitwears Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 345 ITR 135 (Del.) " Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. Vs CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) " Nabha Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India (2000) 246 ITR 41 (Del.) " ITO Vs DG Housing Projects Ltd. (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Del.) 25. It was further submitted th…

Odisha Power Generation Corporation Ltd, Bhubaneswar vs. CIT, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 216/CTK/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 Aug 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.216/Ctk/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2009-2010) M/S Odisha Power Generation Vs. Cit, Bhubaneswar, 7Th Corporation Ltd., Floor, Fortune Tower, Bhubaneswar- 751023 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaco 1759 R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Dillip Ku. Mohanty & Shri Bhagaban Panda, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Kunal Singh,Citdr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 09/08/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Company Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of Cit, Bhubaneswar, Passed U/S.263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The Assessment Year 2009-2010 & Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. For That The Notice Issued By The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bhubaneswar (Cit) Under Section 263 Of The I.T. Act, 196L (The Act) Are Bad In Law, Void Ab Initio & Is Liable To Be Quashed. 2. For That The Order Dated 24.03.2014 Passed By The Learned Cit Under Section 263 Of The Act Is Bad In Law, Void Ab Initio & Is Liable To Be Cancelled.. 3. For That The Cit Has Erred In Invoking His Jurisdiction Under Section 263 Of The Act Without Satisfying The Pre-Conditions Necessary For Assumption Of Such Jurisdiction & Therefore The Order U/S. 263 Are Liable To Be Set Aside Only On This Ground. 4. For That The Finding Of The Cit In The Order U /S. 263 In Respect Of The Two Issues/ Grounds Are Nothing But A Direction To The Ld. A.O. For Substituting His Own Opinion With That Of The Assessing Officer Or For Making A Fishing & Roving Enquiry Are Not A Case Of Erroneous Order & Nevertheless, It Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. The Order

For Appellant: Shri Dillip Ku. MohantyFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh,CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…relevant to AY 2009-10.The basis on which such a provision has been made has not been examined by the AO in course of assessment proceedings. We would like to place reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bhagwan Das, 272 ITR 367, wherein it is held as under :- HELD It was found that in the assessment order, there was no discussion regarding the question as to whether the amount of income shown by the assessee which was being claimed to be exempt, had 6 actually been earned by him or not and, further, whether the entire amount of income from agriculture and poultry farmi…

Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT-03, New Delhi

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2813/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Smt. Beena A. Pillaii.T.A. No. 2813/Del/2016 (Assessment Year 2011-12)

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT (DR)
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32(1)

…Malabar Industrial Co Ltd vs. CIT reported in (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC); • Nabha Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. UOI, reported in (2000) 246 ITR 41 (Del) • CIT vs. Nagesh knitwear’s Pvt. Ltd reported in (2012) 345 ITR 135 (Del) • CIT vs. Bhagwan Das reported in (2005) 272 ITR 367 (ALL) • Pratap footwear vs. ACIT reported in (203) SOTA 638 (Jubbalpore) (Trib); 14. Ld. DR submitted that Assessing Officer is both an investigator and adjudicator, has to decide the issue by conducting proper investigation and enquiry. She submitted that in the present case Ld. AO has failed to investigate the issue of depreciation claimed by…

Kolon Investment P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 8, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2870/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2870/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Kolon Investment Pvt. Ltd. Cit-8, बनाम/ 417-419, 4Th Floor, Room No. 259, Aayakar Bhavan, M. V. Road, Andheri (E), M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Mumbai-400 059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaack 9118 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Girish Dave & Ms. Kadambari Dave ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri H. N. Singh सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 16.5.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 23.8.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: The Instant Appeal By The Assessee Agitates The Revision U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) Dated 31.3.2014 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax-8, Mumbai (‘Cit’ For Short) Qua Its Assessment U/S. 143(3) Dated 01.12.2011 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2009-10. 2. The Basis Of The Revision In The Present Case Is The Acceptance By The Assessing Officer (A.O.) Of The Assessee’S Claim For Short Term Capital Gain (Stcg) On The Non- Exercise Of The Option To Subscribe To The (Equity) Share Capital In Sintex Industries

For Appellant: Shri Girish Dave &For Respondent: Shri H. N. Singh
Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 263

…rth category which arises in the instant case, and with which we are therefore concerned with. The law in the matter is well-settled and the case law, legion, and toward which the ld. CIT has himself referred to some decisions, viz. CIT vs. Bhagwan Das [2005] 272 ITR 367 (All) and P. T. Lashkari Ram vs. CIT 7 Kolon Investment Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT [2005] 272 ITR 309 (All); and Ashok Leyland Ltd. vs. CIT [2003] 260 ITR 599 (Mad). No wonder, the thrust of the assessee’s arguments before us, as afore-stated, was on the merits of the case. We are also conscious that while we have held the impugned loss to be a capital l…

Bosch Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 571/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 35

…issue to the AO for fresh consideration. The ld. DR referred to the following decisions laying down the proposition when detailed examination is required, the CIT has the power to remand the issue to the AO for fresh consideration:- CIT v. Shri Bhagwan Das, 272 ITR 367 (All) Bank of India v. CIT, 152 TTJ 546 (Chennai) 15. We have considered the rival submissions. From the factual details pointed out by the ld. counsel for the assessee which was also pointed out in the reply to show cause notice u/s. 263 of the Act before the CIT(A), it is clear that the R&D activity which was carried out by the assessee in Ban…