CIT v. Ganpat Ram Bisnoi

Shree Auro Iron Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

…al power vested in him in accordance with law and arrived at a conclusion and such a conclusion cannot be considered erroneous simply because the PCIT does not feel satisfied with the conclusion. Provisions of Section 263 nowhere allows to Ganpat Ram Vishnoi, 296 ITR 292 (Raj) challenge the judicial wisdom of the AO or to replace the wisdom in the guise of revision unless the view taken by the AO is not at all sustainable in law. Extent of enquiry cannot be stretched to any level by forcing the AO to go through the assessment process again and again. 2.7 Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench, in the case of Annu Agrotech Pr…

Alok Vijawat, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Udaipur

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

…1 आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf;dlnL; ,oaJhjkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 605/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2019-20 Shri Alok Vijawat cuke The PCIT Vs. Udaipur Station Road, Masjid Ke Samne Bhawani Mandi, Jhalawar 326 502 LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AERPV0538 B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Devang Gargieya, Advocate jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: M…

Baroda Rajasthan Khestriya Gramin Bank, Ajmer vs. PCIT, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Judicial Member)

…ainable in law. In this process even the AO has no power to review his own. In this regard, we draw strength from the decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in 21 Baroda Rajasthan Kheshtriya Gramin Bank vs. PCIT the case of CIT vs. Ganpat Ram Bishnoi [296 ITR 292 Raj) wherein it was held that ; “the jurisdiction high court when enquiry in fact has been conducted and the AO has reached a particular conclusion, though reference to such enquiries has not been made in the order of the assessment, but the same is apparent from the record of the proceedings, in the present case, without anything to say how and…

Sajjad Ali, Chittorgarh vs. DCIT(Intl)- Jaipur, Jaipur

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

…ding of the Tribunal was found perverse. Considering the material on record, it could be said that finding of the Tribunal was perverse. Therefore, the Tribunal was correct in cancelling the order under section 263.” 8.2 Also refer CIT v/s Ganpat Ram Bishnoi 296 ITR 292(Raj.) The record of proceedings clearly shows that the AO has framed his assessment after due application of mind and holding enquiries into all areas, which, according to the CIT have not been at all enquired into and the AO has acted merely on furnishing evidence on one single date. The Tribunal noticed that as per the record of the proceedings…

Naresh Kumar Bhargava, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

…to any level by forcing the ld. AO/NFAC to go through the assessment process again and again this proposition is not authorized by the law. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ganpat Ram Vishnoi, 296 ITR 292 (Raj.) wherein at Para 11 of the Hon'ble Court held as under: "Jurisdiction under section 263 cannot be invoked for making short enquiries or to go into the process of assessment again and again merely on the basis that more enquiry ought to have been conducted to find something." 7.6. Above factual and legal position was submitted before ld. PC…

Roop Kumar Chopra, Jaipur vs. PCIT Jaipur 1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Him By The Assessee In Compliance To The Notice Notices Issued To Him U/S 142(1) As Well As U/S 143(2) Of The Act By The Ao As Erroneous In So Far As It Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue For The Purpose Of Section 263 Of The Act & Consequently Setting Aside The Assessment Order Passed Dated 01-01-2021 To Be Made Afresh Made Is Most Arbitrarily, Unjust, Untenable & Liable To Be Vacated.’’

…ed with the explanation of assessee, the decision of the Assessing Officer cannot be held to be erroneous simply because in his order not make an elaborate discussion in that regard Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Ganpat Ram Bishnoi (2005) 198 CTR Raj 546, 2008 296 ITR 292 Raj (copy enclosed)held that, “Undoubtedly, the jurisdiction under Section 263 is wide and is meant to ensure that due revenue ought to reach the public treasury and if it does not reach on account of some mistake of law or fact committed by the AO, the CIT can cancel that order and require the concerned AO to pass a fresh order in accordance wit…

Sourabh Sharma, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Jaipur-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

…w of the matter the same cannot be subjected to revision u/s. 263 even after the addition of explanation 2 in the Act. This view is further supported by the view already taken in the case of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ganpat Ram Bishnoi [ 296 ITR 292 (Raj)] wherein the jurisdiction high court { after considering the decision of the apex court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs CIT [243 ITR 83(SC)]} held that : 10. From the record of the proceedings, in the present case, no presumption can be drawn that the Assessing Officer had not applied its mind to the various aspects of the ma…