CIT v. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria

66 ITR 443Supreme Court of India1967#365 most cited

What is CIT v. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria authority for?

The appellate authority cannot enhance an assessment by considering a source of income that was not examined by the Assessing Officer. The scope of appellate power is limited to the subject matter considered by the Assessing Officer.

239

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,514 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria · section 31(3) · appellate enhancement · Assessing Officer's scope · undisclosed income · appellate jurisdiction

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 153ASection 251Section 69ASection 132
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 31(3)section 251(l)(a)place of effective managementsection 6(3)section 127(1)section 245halegal expensessection 31ddtsection 251(2)preponderance of probabilityprincipal officer

Judgments citing CIT v. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria

Zuberi Engineering Company, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

ITA 977/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Dec 2018AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel (Adv)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 251Section 40

…he Act to add income not at all considered by the AO? Referring to the catena of decisions including the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (supra) and in case of CIT v. Rai Bahadur Hardutory Motilal Chamaria [1967] 66 ITR 443 (SC), the decision of the Full Bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT v. Sardari Lal & Co. [2001] 251 ITR 864 (Delhi) (FB), besides various other decisions, it held that the powers under section 251 are, indeed, very wide; but, wide as they are, they do not go to the extent of displacing powers under, say, sections 147, 148 and 263.…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Zuberi Engineering Company, Jaipur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

ITA 1122/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Dec 2018AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel (Adv)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 251Section 40

…he Act to add income not at all considered by the AO? Referring to the catena of decisions including the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (supra) and in case of CIT v. Rai Bahadur Hardutory Motilal Chamaria [1967] 66 ITR 443 (SC), the decision of the Full Bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT v. Sardari Lal & Co. [2001] 251 ITR 864 (Delhi) (FB), besides various other decisions, it held that the powers under section 251 are, indeed, very wide; but, wide as they are, they do not go to the extent of displacing powers under, say, sections 147, 148 and 263.…

Jubilant Biosys Ltd, Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Noida

In the result appeals filed by assessee in all the years under consideration before us stands partly allowed

ITA 2760/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Nk Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillai

For Appellant: Sh. KM Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, CIT,DR
Section 251(2)

…ajalakshmi vs. CIT 22 ITR 502, 510; Narrondas vs. CIT 31 ITR 909; Sterling vs. ITO 99 ITR 236 ITA No.7302/Del/17, 1822&1823/Del/18, 2759 & 2760/Del/18 Jubilant Biosys Ltd. ITA No. 1824 & 1825/Del/18, 2757 & 2758/Del/18 Jubilant Chemsys Ltd. 5. 44 ITR 891 6. 66 ITR 443 7. Sneh Lata vs. CIT 61 ITR 139, 143 (1), CIT vs. Jagdish 51 ITR 266 (2), Prabhudas vs. CIT 62 ITR 621(3), CIT vs. Chaganlal 148 ITR 7 (4), Lokenath vs. CIT 161 ITR 82 (5), CIT vs. Nirbheram 127 ITR 491 (6), 8. We also refer to decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Shapoorji Pallonji Mystery vs CIT (which has been affirmed by Hon’ble Su…

Jubilant Biosys Ltd, Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Noida

In the result appeals filed by assessee in all the years under consideration before us stands partly allowed

ITA 2759/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Nk Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillai

For Appellant: Sh. KM Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, CIT,DR
Section 251(2)

…ajalakshmi vs. CIT 22 ITR 502, 510; Narrondas vs. CIT 31 ITR 909; Sterling vs. ITO 99 ITR 236 ITA No.7302/Del/17, 1822&1823/Del/18, 2759 & 2760/Del/18 Jubilant Biosys Ltd. ITA No. 1824 & 1825/Del/18, 2757 & 2758/Del/18 Jubilant Chemsys Ltd. 5. 44 ITR 891 6. 66 ITR 443 7. Sneh Lata vs. CIT 61 ITR 139, 143 (1), CIT vs. Jagdish 51 ITR 266 (2), Prabhudas vs. CIT 62 ITR 621(3), CIT vs. Chaganlal 148 ITR 7 (4), Lokenath vs. CIT 161 ITR 82 (5), CIT vs. Nirbheram 127 ITR 491 (6), 8. We also refer to decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Shapoorji Pallonji Mystery vs CIT (which has been affirmed by Hon’ble Su…

Jubilant Chemsys Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Noida

In the result appeals filed by assessee in all the years under consideration before us stands partly allowed

ITA 2758/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Nk Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillai

For Appellant: Sh. KM Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, CIT,DR
Section 251(2)

…ajalakshmi vs. CIT 22 ITR 502, 510; Narrondas vs. CIT 31 ITR 909; Sterling vs. ITO 99 ITR 236 ITA No.7302/Del/17, 1822&1823/Del/18, 2759 & 2760/Del/18 Jubilant Biosys Ltd. ITA No. 1824 & 1825/Del/18, 2757 & 2758/Del/18 Jubilant Chemsys Ltd. 5. 44 ITR 891 6. 66 ITR 443 7. Sneh Lata vs. CIT 61 ITR 139, 143 (1), CIT vs. Jagdish 51 ITR 266 (2), Prabhudas vs. CIT 62 ITR 621(3), CIT vs. Chaganlal 148 ITR 7 (4), Lokenath vs. CIT 161 ITR 82 (5), CIT vs. Nirbheram 127 ITR 491 (6), 8. We also refer to decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Shapoorji Pallonji Mystery vs CIT (which has been affirmed by Hon’ble Su…

Jubilant Chemsys Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Noida

In the result appeals filed by assessee in all the years under consideration before us stands partly allowed

ITA 2757/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Nk Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillai

For Appellant: Sh. KM Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, CIT,DR
Section 251(2)

…ajalakshmi vs. CIT 22 ITR 502, 510; Narrondas vs. CIT 31 ITR 909; Sterling vs. ITO 99 ITR 236 ITA No.7302/Del/17, 1822&1823/Del/18, 2759 & 2760/Del/18 Jubilant Biosys Ltd. ITA No. 1824 & 1825/Del/18, 2757 & 2758/Del/18 Jubilant Chemsys Ltd. 5. 44 ITR 891 6. 66 ITR 443 7. Sneh Lata vs. CIT 61 ITR 139, 143 (1), CIT vs. Jagdish 51 ITR 266 (2), Prabhudas vs. CIT 62 ITR 621(3), CIT vs. Chaganlal 148 ITR 7 (4), Lokenath vs. CIT 161 ITR 82 (5), CIT vs. Nirbheram 127 ITR 491 (6), 8. We also refer to decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Shapoorji Pallonji Mystery vs CIT (which has been affirmed by Hon’ble Su…

Jubilant Chemsys Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Noida

In the result appeals filed by assessee in all the years under consideration before us stands partly allowed

ITA 1825/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Nk Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillai

For Appellant: Sh. KM Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, CIT,DR
Section 251(2)

…ajalakshmi vs. CIT 22 ITR 502, 510; Narrondas vs. CIT 31 ITR 909; Sterling vs. ITO 99 ITR 236 ITA No.7302/Del/17, 1822&1823/Del/18, 2759 & 2760/Del/18 Jubilant Biosys Ltd. ITA No. 1824 & 1825/Del/18, 2757 & 2758/Del/18 Jubilant Chemsys Ltd. 5. 44 ITR 891 6. 66 ITR 443 7. Sneh Lata vs. CIT 61 ITR 139, 143 (1), CIT vs. Jagdish 51 ITR 266 (2), Prabhudas vs. CIT 62 ITR 621(3), CIT vs. Chaganlal 148 ITR 7 (4), Lokenath vs. CIT 161 ITR 82 (5), CIT vs. Nirbheram 127 ITR 491 (6), 8. We also refer to decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Shapoorji Pallonji Mystery vs CIT (which has been affirmed by Hon’ble Su…

Jubilant Chemsys Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Noida

In the result appeals filed by assessee in all the years under consideration before us stands partly allowed

ITA 1824/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Nk Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillai

For Appellant: Sh. KM Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, CIT,DR
Section 251(2)

…ajalakshmi vs. CIT 22 ITR 502, 510; Narrondas vs. CIT 31 ITR 909; Sterling vs. ITO 99 ITR 236 ITA No.7302/Del/17, 1822&1823/Del/18, 2759 & 2760/Del/18 Jubilant Biosys Ltd. ITA No. 1824 & 1825/Del/18, 2757 & 2758/Del/18 Jubilant Chemsys Ltd. 5. 44 ITR 891 6. 66 ITR 443 7. Sneh Lata vs. CIT 61 ITR 139, 143 (1), CIT vs. Jagdish 51 ITR 266 (2), Prabhudas vs. CIT 62 ITR 621(3), CIT vs. Chaganlal 148 ITR 7 (4), Lokenath vs. CIT 161 ITR 82 (5), CIT vs. Nirbheram 127 ITR 491 (6), 8. We also refer to decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Shapoorji Pallonji Mystery vs CIT (which has been affirmed by Hon’ble Su…

Jubilant Biosys Ltd, Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Noida

In the result appeals filed by assessee in all the years under consideration before us stands partly allowed

ITA 1823/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Nk Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillai

For Appellant: Sh. KM Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, CIT,DR
Section 251(2)

…ajalakshmi vs. CIT 22 ITR 502, 510; Narrondas vs. CIT 31 ITR 909; Sterling vs. ITO 99 ITR 236 ITA No.7302/Del/17, 1822&1823/Del/18, 2759 & 2760/Del/18 Jubilant Biosys Ltd. ITA No. 1824 & 1825/Del/18, 2757 & 2758/Del/18 Jubilant Chemsys Ltd. 5. 44 ITR 891 6. 66 ITR 443 7. Sneh Lata vs. CIT 61 ITR 139, 143 (1), CIT vs. Jagdish 51 ITR 266 (2), Prabhudas vs. CIT 62 ITR 621(3), CIT vs. Chaganlal 148 ITR 7 (4), Lokenath vs. CIT 161 ITR 82 (5), CIT vs. Nirbheram 127 ITR 491 (6), 8. We also refer to decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Shapoorji Pallonji Mystery vs CIT (which has been affirmed by Hon’ble Su…

Jubilant Biosys Ltd, Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Noida

In the result appeals filed by assessee in all the years under consideration before us stands partly allowed

ITA 1822/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Nk Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillai

For Appellant: Sh. KM Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, CIT,DR
Section 251(2)

…ajalakshmi vs. CIT 22 ITR 502, 510; Narrondas vs. CIT 31 ITR 909; Sterling vs. ITO 99 ITR 236 ITA No.7302/Del/17, 1822&1823/Del/18, 2759 & 2760/Del/18 Jubilant Biosys Ltd. ITA No. 1824 & 1825/Del/18, 2757 & 2758/Del/18 Jubilant Chemsys Ltd. 5. 44 ITR 891 6. 66 ITR 443 7. Sneh Lata vs. CIT 61 ITR 139, 143 (1), CIT vs. Jagdish 51 ITR 266 (2), Prabhudas vs. CIT 62 ITR 621(3), CIT vs. Chaganlal 148 ITR 7 (4), Lokenath vs. CIT 161 ITR 82 (5), CIT vs. Nirbheram 127 ITR 491 (6), 8. We also refer to decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Shapoorji Pallonji Mystery vs CIT (which has been affirmed by Hon’ble Su…

Jubilant Biosys Ltd., Noida vs. JCIT, Range- 1, Noida

In the result appeals filed by assessee in all the years under consideration before us stands partly allowed

ITA 7302/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Nk Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillai

For Appellant: Sh. KM Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, CIT,DR
Section 251(2)

…ajalakshmi vs. CIT 22 ITR 502, 510; Narrondas vs. CIT 31 ITR 909; Sterling vs. ITO 99 ITR 236 ITA No.7302/Del/17, 1822&1823/Del/18, 2759 & 2760/Del/18 Jubilant Biosys Ltd. ITA No. 1824 & 1825/Del/18, 2757 & 2758/Del/18 Jubilant Chemsys Ltd. 5. 44 ITR 891 6. 66 ITR 443 7. Sneh Lata vs. CIT 61 ITR 139, 143 (1), CIT vs. Jagdish 51 ITR 266 (2), Prabhudas vs. CIT 62 ITR 621(3), CIT vs. Chaganlal 148 ITR 7 (4), Lokenath vs. CIT 161 ITR 82 (5), CIT vs. Nirbheram 127 ITR 491 (6), 8. We also refer to decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Shapoorji Pallonji Mystery vs CIT (which has been affirmed by Hon’ble Su…

Chaya Devi Velaga, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(4), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 174/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Nov 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Md. Afzal, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.J.P. Anand, DR
Section 143(2)Section 251

…the AO and, therefore, it was not open to the first appellate authority to direct the AO to conduct enquiry on the said four points.—CIT vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC) : TC 7R.576 and CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria (1967) 66 ITR 443 (SC) : TC 7R.590 applied”. 6.3. In the case of CIT Vs. Sardarilal & Co., [251 ITR 864], the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi (FB) has held as under: “The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, on an appeal preferred by the assessed, had jurisdiction to invoke, for the first time, the provisions of rule 33 of the Indian Income Tax Rules, 1922 (hereinafter…

M/S. Pioneer Town Planners Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2069/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Sameep Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)

…is co-terminus with that of the ITO, that he can do what the ITO can do and also direct him to do what he failed to do. In this context, useful reference may also be made to Apex Court’s decisions in the cases of CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria 66 ITR 443 and CIT vs. B.N. Bhattachargee 118 ITR 461 (SC) for the proposition that an assessee having once filed an appeal, cannot withdraw it and even if the assessee refuses to appear at the hearing, the first appellate authority can proceed with the enquiry and if he finds that there has been an under-assessment, he can enhance the assessment. Just as, o…

Shri Sunil Sojatia, Indore vs. The ACIT Circle -2(1), Indore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 312/IND/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 54BSection 68

…ncome considered by I.T.O. This judgment was followed in following cases: - (a) CIT vs Sardari Lal & Co. 251 ITR 864 (Del.)(FB). CIT has not power to travel beyond the subject matter of the assessment. (b) CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria [1967] 66 ITR 443 (SC); (c) Prabhudas Ramji 62 ITR 621 (Guj.); CIT vs Nirbheram 127 ITR 491 (MP); (d) CIT vs Chaganlal Kailas & Co. 148 ITR 7 (Mad.). By the exercise of the power to assess fresh sources of income, the assessee is deprived of a finding by two tribunals and one right of appeal. (e) Jagarnath Therani vs CIT AIR 1925 Pat 408. Where the assessee objects…

Shri Prabhat Sojatia, Indore vs. The ACIT 2(1), Indore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 310/IND/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 54BSection 68

…ncome considered by I.T.O. This judgment was followed in following cases: - (a) CIT vs Sardari Lal & Co. 251 ITR 864 (Del.)(FB). CIT has not power to travel beyond the subject matter of the assessment. (b) CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria [1967] 66 ITR 443 (SC); (c) Prabhudas Ramji 62 ITR 621 (Guj.); CIT vs Nirbheram 127 ITR 491 (MP); (d) CIT vs Chaganlal Kailas & Co. 148 ITR 7 (Mad.). By the exercise of the power to assess fresh sources of income, the assessee is deprived of a finding by two tribunals and one right of appeal. (e) Jagarnath Therani vs CIT AIR 1925 Pat 408. Where the assessee objects…

Hv Metal Arc Pvt. Ltd., Noida vs. ACIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1912/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. M.N. Kumar Sathe, Sr. DR
Section 144

…o-terminus with that of the ITO, that he can do what the ITO can do and also direct him to do what he failed to do. In this context, useful reference may also be made to Apex Court’s decisions in the cases of CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria 66 ITR 443 and CIT vs. B.N. Bhattachargee 118 ITR 461 (SC) for the proposition that an assessee having once filed an appeal, cannot withdraw it and even if the assessee refuses to appear at the hearing, the first appellate authority can proceed with the enquiry and if he finds that there has been an under-assessment, he can enhance the assessment. Just as,…

Abhilasha Construction, Jhansi vs. JCIT Range-6, Jhansi

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 314/AGR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra11 Sept 2018AY 2010-11
Section 145(3)Section 234BSection 40

…ity to bring to tax those items which come to his notice for the first time in the course of hearing of the appeal. Reliance was placed to ‘CIT vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry’, (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC) and ‘CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria’, (1967) 66 ITR 443 (SC), (APB-244-254). Reliance ITA 314/Agr/2015 6 was also placed on ‘CITVs Union Tyres (1999) 240 ITR 556 (Del); CIT Vs Sardari Lal & Co. (2001) 251 ITR 864 (Del) (F.B) and thus, on the strength of above precedents submitted that Ld. CIT(A) was legally unjustified in issuing directions for making separate addition in respect of Interest Income f…

M/S Patidar Hospital & Research Centre, Ujjain vs. The ITO 2(1), Ujjain

In the result, ITA No.1007/Ind/2016 is partly allowed, is allowed and ITA

ITA 1541/IND/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 40Section 80I

…was held inter alia that in an appeal filed by the assessee, the AAC has no power to enhance the assessment by discovering a new source of income not considered by the ITO in the order appealed against. b. CIT v. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria [1967] 66 ITR 443 (SC) It was held that the power of enhancement under section 31(3) was restricted to the subject matter of assessment or the source of income, which had been considered expressly or by clear implication by the Assessing Officer from the point of view of taxability and that the AAC had no power to assess the source of income, which had not been tak…

M/S. Patidar Hospital & Research Centre, Ujjain vs. The ITO 2(1), Ujjain

In the result, ITA No.1007/Ind/2016 is partly allowed, is allowed and ITA

ITA 1008/IND/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 40Section 80I

…was held inter alia that in an appeal filed by the assessee, the AAC has no power to enhance the assessment by discovering a new source of income not considered by the ITO in the order appealed against. b. CIT v. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria [1967] 66 ITR 443 (SC) It was held that the power of enhancement under section 31(3) was restricted to the subject matter of assessment or the source of income, which had been considered expressly or by clear implication by the Assessing Officer from the point of view of taxability and that the AAC had no power to assess the source of income, which had not been tak…

M/S. Patidar Hospital & Research Centre, Ujjain vs. The ITO 2(1), Ujjain

In the result, ITA No.1007/Ind/2016 is partly allowed, is allowed and ITA

ITA 1007/IND/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 40Section 80I

…was held inter alia that in an appeal filed by the assessee, the AAC has no power to enhance the assessment by discovering a new source of income not considered by the ITO in the order appealed against. b. CIT v. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria [1967] 66 ITR 443 (SC) It was held that the power of enhancement under section 31(3) was restricted to the subject matter of assessment or the source of income, which had been considered expressly or by clear implication by the Assessing Officer from the point of view of taxability and that the AAC had no power to assess the source of income, which had not been tak…