How many judgments cite CIT v. Jawahar Bhattacharjee?

99 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Jawahar Bhattacharjee (341 ITR 434), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Jawahar Bhattacharjee come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 263, Section 143(3), Section 142(1), Section 144B, Section 147, Section 143(1).

CIT v. Jawahar Bhattacharjee

341 ITR 434High Court2012#1144 most cited

What is CIT v. Jawahar Bhattacharjee authority for?

An assessment order is erroneous for the purpose of Section 263 if the Assessing Officer fails to apply mind to relevant material, proceeds on an incorrect assumption of facts, or makes an incorrect application of law.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Jawahar Bhattacharjee · Section 263 · revision u/s 263 · erroneous and prejudicial · non-application of mind · incorrect assumption of facts · incorrect application of law · assessment order erroneous · lack of enquiry · Section 80IA deduction

Also reported as

209 Taxmann 17420 Taxmann.com 652249 CTR 529

Sections most often in play

Section 263 Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 144B Section 147 Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

Issues it is cited on

section 263(1)malabar industrial revision u/s 263 deduction under section 80ia lack of enquiry erroneous and prejudicial mere change of opinion non-application of mind section 80ia section 80i section 263 section 26

Judgments citing CIT v. Jawahar Bhattacharjee

Aqua Tech Solutions Private Limited, Pune vs. PCIT (Central)-3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3855/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Acccountant Member

For Appellant: Ms. Simran Dhawan &For Respondent: Shri. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT. DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 801A(4)

…has availed the benefit of deduction u/s 801A(4) clearly exhibits loss of revenue which is the cause of prejudice to the revenue. 10.2 Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Gauhati High Court rendered in the case of CITVS Jawahar Bhattacharjee [2012] 341 ITR 434 (Gauhati) wherein it is held that non-application of mind to relevant material or an incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law will satisfy the requirement of order being erroneous. 10.3 Further, Hon ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bhagwan Das [2005] 272 ITR 367, held that non-application of mind by the A.O.…

M/S.Mahogany Logistics Services Pvt. Ltd., Madurai vs. PCIT, Madurai-1

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

ITA 1631/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1631/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Mahogany Logistics Services Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax-1, 10, Jawahar Road, Chokkikulam, Madurai. Madurai 625 002. [Pan:Aafcd8781R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1, Madurai Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company [Earlier Known As M/S. Drsr Logistics Services Private Limited] Filed Its Return Of Income For The Ay 2018-19 Claiming Loss Of ₹.31,28,98,436/- Under 2

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT

Section 139(9)Section 143(3)Section 201Section 263Section 36Section 37Section 40

…ghtly directed the Assessing Officer to examine the issue of allowability of the said interest expenses. The ld. DR 10 I.T.A. No.1631/Chny/24 drew our attention to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Gauhati in the case of CIT v. Jawahar Bhattacharjee 341 ITR 434 (Gauhati FB) and argued the case of assessment based on wrong assumption of facts, on incorrect application of law, without due application of mind or without following principles of natural justice are not beyond scope of section 263 of the Act. Further, he drew our attention to the order of the Mumbai benches of ITAT in the case of Arvee Intern…

Infinity Cars Private Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT03 Central Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2369/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarinfinity Cars Private V/S. Principal Commissioner Of Limited, 12/A, 1St Floor, बनाम Income Tax– 03 Central, Lotus Cinema Bldg., Worli Mumbai, Room No. 441, 4 Th S.O. Mumbai - 400 018, Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To Maharashtra C-43, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East),Mumbai - 400051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabci5671H Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah,ARFor Respondent: Mr.R.A. Dhyani, (CIT-DR)

Section 153ASection 153CSection 263

…ion on Goodwill, more so where the issue has been discussed in great details and disallowed in the assessment order for A.Y. 2017-18. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Gauhati High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs Jawahar Bhattacharjee [2012] 341 ITR 434 (Gauhati),CIT Vs. Bhagwan Das [2005] 272 ITR 367, Pratap Footwear Vs ACIT [2003] SOT 638 etc. It is stated that in the present case, assessment order passed u/s 153 of the Act is an order passed by the A.O. and therefore, the aforesaid issues, which had not been considered by him in the said reassessment order, could be brought to life in exercis…

Mohd Shahbuddin Khan, Chandigarh vs. PCIT-1, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 564/CHANDI/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Jain, CA and Shri Lovesh Bansal, CA

Section 147Section 263

…", as held by Hon'ble Courts. 6.4 The DR relied on judicial precedents, including: Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (243 ITR 83, SC) – laying down that failure to make inquiries renders the order both erroneous and prejudicial. CIT v. Jawahar Bhattacharjee (342 ITR 74, Gauhati HC) CIT v. Gee Vee Enterprises (99 ITR 375, Delhi HC) ITO v. DG Housing Projects Ltd. (343 ITR 329, Delhi HC) 6.5 It was thus submitted that the impugned assessment order was passed in breach of the duty cast on the AO as both investigator and adjudicator, and the PCIT rightly assumed jurisdiction under section 263 to restore the matter f…

Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation Limited, Khanji Bhavan vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Aayakar Bhawan(Vejalpur), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 651/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 80GSection 80I

…of jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. The matter cannot be remitted for afresh decision to the Assessing Officer to conduct further enquiries without such a finding. 17. Full Bench of Gauhati High Court in case of CIT v. Jawahar Bhattacharjee [2012] 341 ITR 434/209Taxman 174/24 taxmann.com 215 held that not holding such inquiry as is normal and not applying mind to relevant material in making assessment by the Assessing Officer would be an erroneous assessment warranting exercise of revisional jurisdiction. It was held as under: "23. Accordingly, we hold that Daga Entrade P. Ltd [2010] 327 ITR 467 (Gau…

Sbs Biotech Unit II, Sirmour vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 413/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Pal Garg, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 801CSection 80I

…Taxman 66/243 ITR 89 (SC). iii) Not holding an enquiry as is normal and not applying mind to the relevant material would certainly be 'erroneous' assessment warranting exercise of revisional jurisdiction - CIT v. JawaharBhattacharjee (2012) 20 taxmann.com 652/342 ITR 74/249 CTR 529 (Gau.) iv) Where enquiry is warranted but not made, it would certainly constitute prejudice to revenue, so that jurisdiction for the Commissioner is available for remanding the matter for such enquiry - CIT Vs Raja Industries (2012) 340 ITR 344 (P&H). v). Honble Delhi High Court in Income Tax Officer versus DG Housing Projects Limited…

Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, Pune vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2017/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P Bora, H G Sharma

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…as failed to apply his mind to the case in all perspectives and the order passed by him was erroneous and in result prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 11 ITA No.1178/PUN/2023 ITA No.2017/PUN/2024 7.1 In the case of CIT v. Jawahar Bhattacharjee [2012] 341 ITR 434 (Gauhati) (HC) (FB) it has been held that non-application of mind to relevant material or an incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law will satisfy the requirement of order being erroneous. 7.2 It is now a settled law that an order passed by the A.O. become erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue as per the pro…

Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, Pune vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Pune

ITA 1178/PUN/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

A.B. Sugars Limited, Punjab vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 300/CHANDI/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Dec 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Singla, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80ISection 92C

…Taxman 66/243 ITR 89 (SC). ii) Not holding an enquiry as is normal and not applying mind to the relevant material would certainly be 'erroneous' assessment warranting exercise of revisional jurisdiction. CIT v. Jawahar Bhattacharjee (2012) 20 taxmann.com 652/342 ITR 74/249 CTR 529 (Gau.) iii) Where enquiry is warranted but not made, it would certainly constitute prejudice to revenue so that jurisdiction for the Commissioner is available for remanding the matter for such enquiry CIT Vs Raja Industries (2012) 340 ITR 344 (P&H). iv). Honble Delhi High Court in Income Tax Officer versus DG Housing Projects Limited (…

A.B. Sugars Limited, Punjab vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 299/CHANDI/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Dec 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Singla, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80ISection 92C

Sonal Sandeep Satav, Pune vs. PCIT, Pune-2, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 945/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Sarang GudhateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…3 (Calcutta); iv. Nagal Garment Industris (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2020) 113 taxmann.com 4 (MP); v. Rajamandir Estates (P.) Ltd. Vs. PCIT (2016) 386 ITR 162 (Cal.); 14 ITA No.945/PUN/2024, AY 2018-19 vi. CIT Vs. Jawahar Bhattacharjee (2012) 342 ITR 74 (Gauhati); vii. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bhagwan Das (2005) 272 ITR 367 (All.); viii. PT. Lashkari Ram Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2005) 272 ITR 309 (All.); ix. PCIT Vs. Smt. Manju Devi Chourasia (2024) 161 taxmann.com 809 (Jharkhand); x. Pooja Gupta Vs. PCIT in ITA No. 4057/Del/2018, dated 31.01.2019; xi. Ramesh Kumar Goyal HUF Vs. ITO…

M/S Rana & Joshi Buildtech P Ltd, Indore vs. The PCIT-1, Bhopal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 229/IND/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Rana & Joshi Buildtech Pr. Cit-1 Pvt. Ltd. Bhopal (Formerly Known As M/S Rana Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. ) Vs. 218 Civil Lines, Below Dainik Bhaskar Office Vidisha (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aafcr9858P Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 11.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26 .09.2024

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271E

…ial to the interest of the revenue. 4. Pratap Footwear 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 v. Jawahar Bhattacharjee (2012) 341 ITR 434 (Gauhati) (HC) (FB), The Hon'ble High Court has held that error in assessment order arising by ignoring relevant material or on incorrect assumption of facts or incorrect application of law - Amenable to revision u/s 263. 6. [2017) (Himachal Pradesh)/[2017] 298 CTR 393, Virbhadra Singh (HUF)Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Himachal Prade…

Exotic Realtors and Developers, Chandigarh vs. Pr.CIT-1, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 189/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 253Section 263

…Taxman 66/243 ITR 89 (SC). ii) Not holding an enquiry as is normal and not applying mind to the relevant material would certainly be 'erroneous' assessment warranting exej«1se of revisional jurisdiction. CIT v. Jawahar Bhattacharjee (2012) 2tftaxmann.com 652/342 ITR 74/249 CTR 529 (Gau.) iii) Where enquiry is warranted but not made, it would certainly constitute prejudice to revenue, so that jurisdiction for the Commissioner is available for remanding the matter for such enquiry. CIT Vs Raja Industries (2012) 340 ITR 344 (P&H). iv). Honble Delhi High Court in Income Tax Officer versus DG Housing Projects Limite…

Dee Are Texfab Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The PCIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 743/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.743/Ahd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dee Are Texfab Pvt.Ltd. The Pcit 149, New Cloth Market बनाम/ Ahmedabad-1 O/S. Raipur Gate Raipur V/S. Ahmedabad – 380 002 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaecd 5136 H (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) …. ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22/07/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28/03/2024 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Pr.Cit(A)” In Short] Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 27/03/20223 Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 147 Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. Dee Are Texfab Pvt.Ltd. Vs. The Pr.Cit Asst. Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 263

…rrect.” 2.6. The assessee also placed reliance on some judicial precedents before PCIT: a. CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Limited reported in 332 ITR 167 (Del). b. Smt.Juthika Kar vs. ITO in ITA No.1128/Kol/2009 dated 16.05.2012. c. CIT v. Jawahar Bhattacharjee [2012] 341 ITR 434 (Gauhati) (HC) (FB). d. CIT v. Bhagwan Das [2005] 272 ITR 367 (All.)(HC). Dee Are Texfab Pvt.Ltd. vs. The Pr.CIT Asst. Year : 2014-15 6 e. Hero Briggs & Stratton Auto Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 161 Taxman 127 (Delhi) (Trib.). f. Punjab Wool Syndicate v. ITO [2012] 17 ITR 439 (Chandigarh) (Trib.). g. Vijay Kumar Megotia v. CIT [2010] 3 ITR (T) 760 (Pat.…

Jameson Abraham, Kollam vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Trivandrum

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 979/COCH/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasjameson Abraham Principal Commissioner Emmanuel Cashes Industries Of Income Tax Chepara P.O., Kottarakara Vs. Thiruvananthuparam Kollam 691520 [Pan: Afopa7312Q] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…et aside the assessment in view of the disparities in the returned balances, for redoing it upon due verification upon extending due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Reliance was placed by him on the decisions in CIT v. Jawahar Bhattacharjee [2012] 341 ITR 434 (Gau)(FB) and CIT v. Emery Stone Mfg. Co. [1995] 213 ITR 843 (Raj). Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal. 4.1 Before us, the assessee’s case was that there was due verification by the Assessing Officer (AO) in the assessment proceedings, and that merely because he Jameson Abraham v. Pr. CIT had not elaborated thereon in the assessment order, should…

Nahar Colours and Coatinhgs Private Limited, Udaipur vs. Principal Commissioner Ofincometax, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 140/JODH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur09 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR VIRTUAL HEARING BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM Nahar Colours and Coatings Vs Principal Private Ltd., Commissioner of G-1, 90-93, Udyog Vihar, Income Tax, Suker, Udaipur Udaipur (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN NO. AAACN 6942 K Assessee By Sh. Gautam Chand Baid, CA Revenue By Sh. Lovish Kumar, CIT-DR Date of hearing 14/07/2023 Date of 09/08/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM This appeal is filed by assessee and is arising out of the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ud…

Barclays Merchant Bank ( Singapore ) Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (International Circle) Range-1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse stand dismissed

ITA 907/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Rajesh Meshram

Section 143(3)Section 263

…P a g e | 1 Barclays Merchant Bank (singapore) Ld. Vs. CIT (IT) range 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Barclays Merchant Bank Vs. Commissioner of Income (Singapore)Limited Tax (IT)Range-1 C/o SRBC and Associates B, Wing 17th Floor, Room LLP 14th Floor, The Ruby, No. 1704, Air India 29, Senapati Bapat Marg, Building, Nariman Point, Dadar West, Mumbai 400021 Mumbai – 400028 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AACCB0070E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Madhur Agarwal Respondent by : Rajesh Meshram…

Smt. Satvir Kaur W/O Sh. Shinder Singh, Ferozepur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Amritsar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 102/ASR/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar29 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263

…icial to the interest of the revenue. The Pr. CIT supplemented its decision on lack of enquiry and incorrect application of mind by the AO with the judgements in the cases of Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs. CIT(SC) 671TR 84; (CIT v. Jawahar Bhatiacharjee [2012] 341 ITR 434 (Gauhati) HC FB and that Arvee International vs. Addl. CIT (ITAT, Mum) 101 ITD 495. 5. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the Ld. Pr. CIT has no valid and justified reason for initiating revisionary proceeding u/s 263 of the act and he challenged the revisionary order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act holding the assessment erroneous on lack of enquir…

Meera Hussain, Chennai vs. PCIT, Chennai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 501/CHNY/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jmand Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.501/Chny/2022 (िनधा1रणवष1 / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Meera Hussain Pr. Cit बनाम/ 19, Thambu Chetty Street, Chennai-8. Vs. Mannady,Chennai-600 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aahpm-9324-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ("#थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri T.T. Durairaj Kandiar(Ca) – Ld.Ar "#थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan (Cit) – Ld.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04-05-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19-05-2023 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Assail The Invocation Of Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai-8 (Pr. Cit) Vide Impugned Order Dated 25.03.2021 In The Matter An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 14-11-2017. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are As Under:- “On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Of The Hon'Ble Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai-8, Passed U/S.263, With Reference No.: Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2020-21/ 1031753147(1), Dated 25.03.2021, Is Against The Facts Of The Case Weight Of Evidence On Record & Bad In Law For The Following Reasons:-

For Appellant: Shri T.T. Durairaj Kandiar(CA) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan (CIT) – Ld.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…in his return. Passing an order without applying mind to relevant facts would certainly be an erroneous assessment requiring exercise of Jurisdiction u/s263. This view is supported by the decision of Hon'ble Guwahati High Court in CIT Vs Jawahar Bhattacharjee 341 ITR 434 (Gau)(FB). In 41 ITR 286 (Ker), it was held that when Assessing Officer passed a cryptic order which does not 7 contain details and claims were accepted without enquiry, the assessment order was erroneous and order u/s 263 was justified. In case of Supercloth, 99 ITD 300 (Chn), it was held that lack of enquiry by AO was sufficient to invoke revis…

Shri Vinod Bansal, Chennai vs. Aci-Cent. Circle-3(2), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 445/CHNY/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkery, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 445/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Respondent: Shri. S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 263

…f the order being erroneous. In the same category fall orders passed without applying the principles of natural justice or without application of mind. The Gawhati High Court Full bench in the case of CIT v Jawahar :-10-: ITA. No:445/Chny/2022 Bhattacharjee 341 ITR 434 (Gau) (FB) held that, Jurisdiction under section 263 can be exercised whenever it is found that the order of assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Cases of assessment order passed on wrong assumption of facts, or incorrect application of law, without due application of mind or without following the principles o…