CIT v. Goyal Private Family Specific Trust

171 ITR 698High Court1988#2326 most cited

What is CIT v. Goyal Private Family Specific Trust authority for?

A brief or cryptic assessment order passed by the Income-tax Officer, without a finding that an erroneous conclusion was reached, is not sufficient ground for the Commissioner to invoke revisional jurisdiction under Section 263. The mere brevity of an order does not automatically render it erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.

49

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Goyal Private Family Specific Trust · Goyal Family Trust · Section 263 · revisional jurisdiction · brief assessment order · cryptic assessment order · erroneous and prejudicial to revenue · Commissioner's powers · Section 143(3) assessment

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 147Section 148Section 10(37)Section 145A(b)Section 151Section 56(2)(viii)

Issues it is cited on

section 141section 282a(1)section 194lanational tax tribunalsection 293section 65asection 145a(b)section 145bsection 44afinadequate enquirysection 45(5)revision u/s 263

Judgments citing CIT v. Goyal Private Family Specific Trust

Mahim Patran P. Ltd, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT -2, Agra

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

ITA 195/AGR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra02 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 143(3)Section 199(1)Section 205Section 263

…tablish that the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Relevant Para Nos. 11,12 and 14 are extracted hereinasunder:- "11. In the case of Goyal Private Family Specific Trust [1988] 171 ITR 698, this court has held that the order of the Income-tax Officer may be brief and cryptic, but that by itself is not sufficient reason to brand the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and it was for the Commissioner to point out as to what error was committed by the Income-tax Officer in having reached to it…

Devang Gandhi, Navi Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3746/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Ms Sunita Billa
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…ncome-tax under section 263." Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahender Kumar Bansal, 297 ITR 0099 in which respectfully following the decision in the case of CIT vs. Goyal Private Family Specific Trust, 171 ITR 698 (Alld.) has held under para no.12 as under :- “As held by this Court in the case of Goyal Private Family Specific Trust (supra,) we are of the considered opinion that merely because the ITO had not written lengthy order, it would not establish that the Assessment Order passed under section 143(3)/148 of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the…

Devang Gandhi, Navi Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3745/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Ms Sunita Billa
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…ncome-tax under section 263." Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahender Kumar Bansal, 297 ITR 0099 in which respectfully following the decision in the case of CIT vs. Goyal Private Family Specific Trust, 171 ITR 698 (Alld.) has held under para no.12 as under :- “As held by this Court in the case of Goyal Private Family Specific Trust (supra,) we are of the considered opinion that merely because the ITO had not written lengthy order, it would not establish that the Assessment Order passed under section 143(3)/148 of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the…

Natvar Parikh & Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT Cen IV, Mumbai

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

ITA 444/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan
Section 143(3)Section 263

…263." Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahender Kumar Bansal, 297 ITR 0099 in which respectfully following the decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Goyal Private Family Specific Trust, 171 ITR 698 (Alld.) has held under para No.12 as under :- “As held by this Court in the case of Goyal Private Family Specific Trust (supra,) we are of the considered opinion that merely because the ITO had not written lengthy order, it would not establish that the Assessment Order passed under section 143(3)/148 of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the…

Reliance Money Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3259/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri B Puresh
Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 263Section 50

…sion stands approved by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Communication reported in 76 taxman.com 226(SC). The ld. AR also relied upon the decision of the Hon‟ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT V/s Goyal Private Family Specific Trust (171 ITR 698). Ld counsel contended that in order to render an assessment order erroneous , it is not sufficient on the part of Pr. CIT to mention that there was an error in the assessment order but it has to be state as to how the same is not in accordance with law. Thus, the ld. Pr. CIT has failed to point out as to how the order of Assessing officer is inc…

Axcel Global Services, Mumbai vs. CIT 13, Mumbai

In the result, Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2446/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Cn Prasad & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal: (A.Y : 2009-10) M/S Axcel Global Services Vs. The Cit 13 Prabhat Palace, Behind Laxmi Bhawan Aayakar Bhavan Lajpatrai Road, Vile Parle West M.K.Marg Mumbai – 400 056 New Marine Lines Pan : Aaofa1550D Mumbai – 400 056 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri AV SondeFor Respondent: Shri RP Meena
Section 10ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…nless he comes to conclusion that there is an error in the assessment order. For this proposition he places reliance on the following decisions. (a) CIT Vs. Trustees Anupam Charitable Trust [167 ITR 129] (Raj.) (b) CIT Vs. Goyal Private Family Specific Trust [171 ITR 698] (All.) (c) CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd. [203 ITR 108] (Bom.) 6. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee further placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gabriel India Ltd Vs. CIT [203 ITR 108] submits that the Ld. Commissioner cannot initiate proceedings with a view to make fishing and roving inquiries in matters…

Shree D.K. Associates, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 32, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 5659/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P. K. Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

Section 143(3)Section 263

…." 13. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahender Kumar Bansal, 297 ITR 0099 in which respectfully following the decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Goyal Private Family Specific Trust, 171 ITR 698 (Alld.) has held under para no.12 as under :- “As held by this Court in the case of Goyal Private Family Specific Trust (supra,) we are of the considered opinion that merely because the ITO had not written lengthy order, it would not establish that the Assessment Order passed under section 143(3)/148 of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to th…

Usha Martin Telematics Limited, Kolkata vs. CIT, Kolkata - IV, Kolkata

In the result the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2222/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, A.M. & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, J.M.)

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT,DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 253Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH ‘C’, KOLKATA (Before Shri P. M. Jagtap, A.M. & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, J.M.) ITA No. 2222/Kol/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-2011 Usha Martin Telematics Ltd. Vs C.I.T., Kolkata-IV, PAN: AAACU 3054D Kolkata (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by : Shri Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Respondent by : Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT,DR Date of Hearing : 27.01.2016 Date of Pronouncement :26-04-2016 ORDER Per Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, J.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 12.08.2014 passed by the CIT-IV, Kolkata for the assessment year 2010-11 fr…

A2Z Maintenance and Engineering Services Ltd., Gurgaon vs. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2438/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Shri R.M. Mehta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Jain, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 145Section 211Section 263

…to what error was committed by the Income-tax Officer in having reached to his conclusion and in the absence of which proceedings under section 263 of the Act is not warranted.” “As held by this court in the case of Goyal Private Family Specific Trust [1988] 171 ITR 698, we are of the considered opinion that merely because the Income-tax Officer had not written lengthy order it would not establish that the assessment order passed under section 143(3)/148 of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue without bringing on record specific instances, which in the present case, the Commission…