How many judgments cite CIT v. Panna Devi Saraogi?

19 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Panna Devi Saraogi (78 ITR 728), spanning 2011 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Panna Devi Saraogi come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 250, Section 143(3), Section 250(6), Section 68, Section 144, Section 144B.

CIT v. Panna Devi Saraogi

78 ITR 728High Court1970#6142 most cited

What is CIT v. Panna Devi Saraogi authority for?

The opportunity for an assessee to be heard must be real, reasonable, and effective. A "paper opportunity" or one given for a very short duration violates the principles of natural justice.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Panna Devi Saraogi · principles of natural justice · opportunity of being heard · real and reasonable opportunity · effective opportunity · paper opportunity · denial of opportunity · audi alteram partem

Sections most often in play

Section 250 Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 68 Section 144 Section 144B Section 147 Section 148

Issues it is cited on

section 253(1)section 250(6)section 44ad faceless assessment unexplained money speaking order section 144b first appeal section 69a section 133a income-tax officer opportunity of being heard

Judgments citing CIT v. Panna Devi Saraogi

JAVEED KHAN AHEMAD KHAN,YAWAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), JALGAON

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2738/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Shubham N. Rathi (virtual)For Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale, Addl.CIT

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69A

…d. The opportunity of being heard should be real, reasonable and effective. The same should not be for the name sake. It should not be a paper 3 ITA.No.2738/PUN./2024 (Javeed Khan Ahemad Khan) opportunity. This was so held in CIT v. Panna Devi Saraogi [1970] 78 ITR 728 (Cal.). In Smt. Ritu Devi v. CIT [2004] 141 Taxman 559 (Mad.), time of just one day was given to the assessee to furnish reply. This was held as a denial of opportunity. As held in E. Vittal v. Appropriate Authority [1996] 221 ITR 760 (AP), where a decision is based upon a document in a proceeding, a copy of the same should be provided to the affe…

NEERAJ KUMAR SETHI,DELHI vs. ITO, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC)

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

ITA 9/ASR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kalia, C.A

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…opportunity and clearly violates natural justice . 17. On this issue he relied upon the following decisions for support: “(1) Umanath Pandey v. State of UP (2009) 12 SCC 40-43 (ii) CCE v. ITC Ltd (1995) 2 SCC 38(SC) (iii) CIT v. Panna Devi Saraogi (1970) 78 ITR 728 (Cal) (iv) Smt. Ritu Devi v. CIT (2004) 141 Taxman 559 (Mad) (v) M. Mohd. Ishaq v. CIT (1995) 27 ITR 510, 513 (Punj) (vi) Ponkunnam Traders v. Addl. ITO (1972) 83 ITR 508 (Ker) (vii) Addl. ITO Ponkunnam Traders (1976) 102 ITR 366 (Ker) (viii) State of Kerala v. Shaduli Grocery Dealer (K.T.) AIR 1977 SC 1627 18. The Ld. AR rested his argument…

SURAJDATTA SAGUN MORAJKAR,NERUL vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PANAJI GOA, PANAJI

ITA 122/PAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavankumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 122/Pan/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Surajdatta Sagun Morajkar C/O. Sun Estate Developers, Next To Sal De Goa, Bhatti Waddo, Bardez, Goa-403114 Pan : Aempm7614J . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Vinesh Pikale [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Deshmukh Prakash [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(1)Section 32(1)Section 37(1)Section 41(1)Section 5ASection 68

…eek real compliance. May these unreal opportunities & namesake instances may be through oversight or owning to last minute rush, but certainly were unreasonable thus defeated the natural justice. 8. In view of ratio laid in ‘CIT Vs Panna Devi Saraogi’ [1970, 78 ITR 728 (Cal.)] the opportunity of being heard should be real, reasonable and effective, the same should not be for namesake, it should not be a mere paper opportunity. The absence of real opportunity render the proceedings irregular, thus deserves to be set-aside. In the case of ‘Smt. Ritu Devi Vs CIT’ [2004] 141 Taxman 559 (Mad.), it was held that, time…

GANGAPPA DUNDAPPA AGASAR,BELAGAVI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI

The appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes in aforestated terms

ITA 208/PAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 208/Pan/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Gangappa Dundappa Agasar At Post: Badali, Tal.: Saundatti, Dist.: Belgaum Pan:Apzpa2849H. . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Nfeac/Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Belgaum. . . . . . . . Respondent

For Appellant: Mr Manjunath Dodamani [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Narendra Reddy [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 250Section 253(1)Section 269SSection 271DSection 69A

…ess than a reasonable period of fifteen days was mere paper & namesake opportunity and much less than real, reasonable and effective, therefore the entire proceeding has severely suffered from natural justice. In view of the ‘CIT Vs Panna Devi Saraogi’ [1970, 78 ITR 728 (Cal.)] the proceedings culminated without according real, reasonable and effective ITAT-Panaji Page 7 of 8 Gangappa Dundappa Agasar Vs NFeAC ITA Nos.208/PAN/2024 AY 2017-18 opportunity of hearing cannot be allowed to stand in the eyes of law as it violates the principle of natural justice. In view of the aforestated judicial precedents, the pe…

SHRI KISHOR VASANT CHOUGULE,BELAGAVI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICR, WARD - 1, NIPPANI

ITA 90/PAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji06 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 090/Pan/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Kishor Vasant Chougule Prop. Om-Ganesh Cloth & Utensils Centre, Chougule Building, 261, Bazar Lane, Benadi, Belgavi. Pan:Aurpc144Q . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Mr Narendra Reddy [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 253(1)Section 69A

…ly & produce requisite details in less than a reasonable period which clearly suggest these were only a paper opportunity granted to create audit trail and not with an intent to seek real compliance. In view of ratio laid in ‘CIT Vs Panna Devi Saraogi’ [1970, 78 ITR 728 (Cal.)] the opportunity of being heard should be real, reasonable and effective, the same should not be for namesake, it should not be a mere paper opportunity. In the case of ‘Smt. Ritu Devi Vs CIT’ [2004] 141 Taxman 559 (Mad.), time of just few days granted to assessee to furnish reply was also held as denial of real opportunity and proceedings…

PRAKASH ARJUN DESAI,RAIGAD vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD), PANVEL, CIRLCE, PANVEL

Appeals of the assessee are PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES

ITA 298/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: MR K Gopal [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Arvind Desai [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 133ASection 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

…nsidered opinion is not a reasonable period, because the opportunity of being heard should be real, reasonable and effective, the same should not be for namesake, it should not be a mere paper opportunity. This is so held in ‘CIT v. Panna Devi Saraogi’ [1970] 78 ITR 728 (Cal.). ITAT-Pune Page 6 of 8 Prakash Arjun Desai Vs DCIT/ITO ITA No. 296 to 298/PUN/2024 In the case of ‘Smt. Ritu Devi v. CIT’ [2004] 141 Taxman 559 7. (Mad.), time of just few days was given to the assessee to furnish reply which was also held as denial of real opportunity. It shall be worthy to underlined that the opportunity of being heard…

PRAKASH ARJUN DESAI,RAIGAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-PANVEL, PANVEL

Appeals of the assessee are PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES

ITA 297/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: MR K Gopal [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Arvind Desai [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 133ASection 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

PRAKASH ARJUN DESAI,RAIGAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-PANVEL, PANVEL

Appeals of the assessee are PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES

ITA 296/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: MR K Gopal [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Arvind Desai [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 133ASection 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

SHRINIVAS VIJAYKUMAR CHIDREWAR,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 3(3), PUNE

The appeal is ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL

ITA 1470/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2014-2015 Shrinivas Vijaykumar Chidrewar A-38, S.No-55, H.No-1, Sadbhav Co-Op. Hsg. Society, Kothrud, Pune-411029 Pan: Ahspc3607Q. . . . . . . . Appellant V/S The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3), Pune. . . . . . . . Respondent

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Mr BS Rajpurohit [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 132Section 147Section 250Section 69A

…nsidered opinion is not a reasonable period, because the opportunity of being heard should be real, reasonable and effective, the same should not be for namesake, it should not be a mere paper opportunity. This is so held in ‘CIT v. Panna Devi Saraogi’ [1970] 78 ITR 728 (Cal.). In the case of ‘Smt. Ritu Devi v. CIT’ [2004] 141 Taxman 559 (Mad.), time of just few days was given to the assessee to furnish reply which was also held as denial of real opportunity. As held in ‘E. Vittal v. Appropriate Authority’ [1996] 221 ITR 760 (AP), where a decision is based upon a document in a proceeding, copy of the same should…

MR SHASHIKANT YASHWANT CHAUDHARI,JALGAON vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, JALGAON

The appeal is PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES

ITA 1363/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2020-21 Shashikant Yashwant Chaudhari, Block-8, Behind Gurudatta Mandir, Jijau Nagar, Nr. Wagh Nagar, Jalgaon-425001 Pan: Ahopc8437E . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: None for AssesseeFor Respondent: Mr Arvind Desai [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘B’ BENCH PUNE BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND HON’BLE SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2020-21 Shashikant Yashwant Chaudhari, Block-8, Behind Gurudatta Mandir, Jijau Nagar, Nr. Wagh Nagar, Jalgaon-425001 PAN: AHOPC8437E . . . . . . . Appellant V/s The Income Tax Officer, PNE-W-[25]-[3], Jalgaon. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee by : None for Assessee Revenue by : Mr Arvind Desai [‘Ld. DR’] Date of conclusive Hearing : 26/09/2024 Date of Pronouncement : 01/10/2024 ORDER PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI, AM; This appeal…

VENKATESHWARA WIRES PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 322/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: The Ld. Ao As Well As Before The Ld. Cit(A) As The Documents Submitted Was Only In Support Of Confirmations & Other Documents Already Submitted & No New Documents Were Submitted. 2. The Assessee Craves Your Indulgence To Add Amend Or Alter All Or Any Grounds Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 801ASection 80I

…n such a case can be struck down as invalid on that score alone. (c) Shri Ram Durgaprasad Vs. Settlement Commission (1989) 176 ITR 169 (SC) The order made in violation of principal of natural justice is void and nullity (d) CIT v. Panna Devi Saraogi [1970] 78 ITR 728 (Cal.). The opportunity of being heard should be real, reasonable and effective. The same should not be for name sake. It should not be a paper opportunity. (e) Tinbox Company Vs CIT (2001) 249 ITR 216 (SC) The principle of natural justice is so fundamental that failure to observe the principle of natural justice cannot be made good in appeal. Lac…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MUKESH KUMAR SONI, JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

ITA 656/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

For Appellant: Sh. S. B. Natani (FCA)For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar (CIT)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148A

…the assessee and vitiate the assessment. 19. Jawala Prasad vs. State AIR 1977 (Raj) 187 etc. all the Courts have held that a decision arrived at without following natural justice is void (Suresh vs. State AIR 1970 MP 154); 20. CIT v. Panna Devi Saraogi [1970] 78 ITR 728 (Cal.). The opportunity of being heard should be real, reasonable and effective. The same should not be for name sake. It should not be a paper opportunity. This was so held in 21. TCN Menon Vs ITO (1974) 96 ITR 148 (ker.) Opportunity must be given to assessee: These assessee will have to be given an opportunity of being heard and a right to quest…

SUNDAR SANKAR VA SWADHYA MANDAL,NASHIK vs. CIT EXEMPTION, PUNE, PUNE

The appeal is ALLOWED FOR STATISTCIAL PURPOSE

ITA 1439/PUN/2023[--]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jan 2024

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1439/Pun/2023 Sundar Sankar Va Swadhya Mandal, 22, Lokmanya Nagar, Gangapur Road, Nashik- 422002. Pan: Aaets1478G . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mrs. Deepa Khare [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ajay Kumar Kesari [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 12(1)(ac)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

…sidered opinion in not a reasonable period, because the opportunity of being heard should be real, reasonable and effective, the same should not be for namesake, it should not be a mere paper opportunity. This was so held in ‘CIT v. Panna Devi Saraogi’ [1970] 78 ITR 728 (Cal.). In ‘Smt. Ritu Devi v. CIT’ [2004] 141 Taxman 559 (Mad.), time of just a day was given to the assessee to furnish reply. This was held as denial of opportunity. As also held in ‘E. Vittal v. Appropriate Authority’ [1996] 221 ITR 760 (AP), where a decision is based upon a document in a proceeding, copy of the same should be provided to the a…

CHANDRAKANT NARSHI DEDHIA ,MUMBAI vs. CIT-(A)-28 NFAC , MUMBAI

ITA 505/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anil Gupta, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…CIT (1980) 4 Taxman 29 (SC), Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE (2015) 62 Taxmann.com 3/52 GST 355 (SC) and the decision rendered by ITA Nos.504 & 505/M/2022 4 Shri Chandrakant N. Dedhia Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of CIT vs. Panna Devi Saraogi (1970) 78 ITR 728 (Cal.) and the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of Smt. Ritu Devi vs. CIT (2004) 141 Taxman 559 (Mad.), in the statement of facts brought on record as annexure B. 8. When I examine the assessment order passed by the AO particularly table given in para 5.3 & 5.4 of A.Y. 2016-17 & 2017-18 respectively all the alleged entri…

CHANDRAKANT N. DEDHIA ,MUMBAI vs. CIT-(APPEALS)-28 (NFAC) , MUMBAI

ITA 504/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anil Gupta, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

SHRI AJAYBHAI MUGATRLAL PANDYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1), RAJKOT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 167/RJT/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot14 Sept 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)

…can be termed as reasonable cause also. 1. 171 ITR 596 (Hon. Allahabad High Court) - Jagannathprasad Kanaiyalal. 2. 2 M & ROB 172 (USA) - Barber and wood. 3. 249 ITR 216 - Hon. Supreme Court - Tin Box Co. 4. 1998 AIR SC 3038 - State of UP v/s. Strugnalal 5. 78 ITR 728 (Hon. Culcatta High Court) - Pannadevi Saraoji. Hon. ITAT, Rajkot - 1TA No.176/RJT/2013 - Keshubhai G. Mandaliya.” 6. 7. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused all the relevant material available on record. At the time of assessment proceedings, none appeared on behalf of the assessee for contesting the assessment proceedings under Section 143(3) of…

M/S. P.K. COTTON MILLS (P) LTD.,,MEERUT vs. ACIT, MEERUT

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2504/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 263

…could not be said to Page 28 of 35 ITA No.- 2504/Del/2016. P.K. Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. have been denied an opportunity of showing cause against the grounds and materials and the rules of natural justice were not violated. In CIT vs. Panna Devi Saraogi (1970) 78 ITR 728 (Cal) : TC57R.142, the High Court of Calcutta held that there was no violation of the principles of natural justice on the question of opportunity being given to the assessee. That opportunity was reasonably given, by stating the basic grounds on which the CIT thought that the ITO's order was erroneous and giving a reasonable opportunity to the as…

M/S. P.K. COTTON MILLS PVT. LTD.,MEERUT vs. CIT, MEERUT

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

ITA 2055/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. P.K. Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd., 202, New Mohan Puri, Meerut. Meerut Pan : Aadcp4270D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Vinod Kr. Goel, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Ankur Garg, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24.08.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 18.11.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 18/03/2013 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax, Meerut Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961(In Short “The Act”) Revising The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Act For Assessment Year 2008-09. The Assessee Revised Its Grounds Of Appeal Vide Letter Dated 07/07/2015, Which Are Reproduced As Under: “1. That Notice U/S 263 Issued By Cit, Meerut Was Vague & Is Based Upon Incorrect Facts & Law & No Reasonable & Proper Opportunity Being Heard Was Allowed. Hence, Entire Proceeding Is Against The Principle Of Natural Justice. 2. That Ld. Cit, Meerut Has Not Justified In Making Addition Of Rs. 49,46,196/- Claimed By The Assessee As Loss On Account Of Machinery, Which Is After Due Consideration Accepted By The Ld. A.O.. This Addition Is Against Law & Facts Of The Case.

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40Section 40ASection 40A(2)(b)Section 43B

…originally passed was correct or not, and, therefore, the assessee could not be said to have been denied an opportunity of showing cause against the grounds and materials and the rules of natural justice were not violated. In CIT vs. Panna Devi Saraogi (1970) 78 ITR 728 (Cal) : TC57R.142, the High Court of Calcutta held that there was no violation of the principles of natural justice on the question of opportunity being given to the assessee. That opportunity was reasonably given, by stating the basic grounds on which the CIT thought that the ITO's order was erroneous and giving a reasonable opportunity to the as…

CIT vs. M/S ESCORTS LTD.

The appeal is dismissed

ITA - 14 / 1999HC Delhi01 Feb 2011

For Appellant: Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. R.M. Mehta, Advocate

Section 260ASection 263Section 80

…power conferred on him under section 263 of the Act. In support of her submissions, the learned counsel relied upon the following judgments :- 2011:DHC:591-DB ITA 14/1999 CIT Vs. Electro House 82 ITR 824 (SC), 827 and CIT vs Panna Devi Saraogi (1970) 78 ITR 728 (Cal.) at pages 739-40. 5. As against this, Mr. Mehta submitted that the respondent/assessee had been carrying out the aforementioned transactions for past several years including in the assessment year which preceded the relevant assessment year. The department had not impugned the genuineness of the transactions. Mr Mehta relied upon the…