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

ACIT, Circle- 4(1), Gurgaon vs. Lemon Tree Land and Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 3749/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr.AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT- DR
Section 3Section 36Section 37Section 37(1)Section 40A(2)

…te Assistant Commissioner has no power to enhance the assessment by discovering a new source of income not considered by the Income Tax Officer in the order appealed against. A similar view was expressed in CIT v. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria (1967) 66 ITR 443 (SC). That also related to a case under section 31(3) of the old Act. It was held that the power of enhancement under section 31(3) of the old Act was restricted to the subject- matter of the 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…

Lemon Tree Land and Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 2, Gurgaon

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

ITA 3087/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr.AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT- DR
Section 3Section 36Section 37Section 37(1)Section 40A(2)

…te Assistant Commissioner has no power to enhance the assessment by discovering a new source of income not considered by the Income Tax Officer in the order appealed against. A similar view was expressed in CIT v. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria (1967) 66 ITR 443 (SC). That also related to a case under section 31(3) of the old Act. It was held that the power of enhancement under section 31(3) of the old Act was restricted to the subject- matter of the 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…

Jagdish Chandra Suwalka, Jaipur vs. JCIT, Range-7, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 376/JPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 44A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 376/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2015-16. cuke Jagdish Chandra Suwalka, The JCIT. Vs. 537-538, Mahima Trinity Mall, Range-7, Sewage Farm, New Sanganer Road, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. BYYPS 8809 L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Advocate. jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Ms Monisha Chou…

Romesh Yadav, Ghaziabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2177/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 2172/Del/2022 , A.Y. 2012-13 Ita No. 2173/Del/2022, A.Y. 2013-14 Ita No. 2174/Del/2022, A.Y. 2014-15

Section 245HSection 246ASection 250(6)

…t, useful reference may also be made to Hon’ble Apex Court's decisions in 2172 to 2177.Del.2022 Ramesh Yadav the cases of CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal ITA No.2147/Del/2017 Corporate International Finance Service Ltd. vs. ITO Page 10 of 13 Chamaria 66 ITR 443 (SC) 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 underassessment, he can enhance the assessment. Just a…

Romesh Yadav, Ghaziabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2176/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 2172/Del/2022 , A.Y. 2012-13 Ita No. 2173/Del/2022, A.Y. 2013-14 Ita No. 2174/Del/2022, A.Y. 2014-15

Section 245HSection 246ASection 250(6)

…t, useful reference may also be made to Hon’ble Apex Court's decisions in 2172 to 2177.Del.2022 Ramesh Yadav the cases of CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal ITA No.2147/Del/2017 Corporate International Finance Service Ltd. vs. ITO Page 10 of 13 Chamaria 66 ITR 443 (SC) 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 underassessment, he can enhance the assessment. Just a…

Romesh Yadav, Ghaziabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2175/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 2172/Del/2022 , A.Y. 2012-13 Ita No. 2173/Del/2022, A.Y. 2013-14 Ita No. 2174/Del/2022, A.Y. 2014-15

Section 245HSection 246ASection 250(6)

…t, useful reference may also be made to Hon’ble Apex Court's decisions in 2172 to 2177.Del.2022 Ramesh Yadav the cases of CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal ITA No.2147/Del/2017 Corporate International Finance Service Ltd. vs. ITO Page 10 of 13 Chamaria 66 ITR 443 (SC) 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 underassessment, he can enhance the assessment. Just a…

Romesh Yadav, Ghaziabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-14, Nw Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2174/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 2172/Del/2022 , A.Y. 2012-13 Ita No. 2173/Del/2022, A.Y. 2013-14 Ita No. 2174/Del/2022, A.Y. 2014-15

Section 245HSection 246ASection 250(6)

…t, useful reference may also be made to Hon’ble Apex Court's decisions in 2172 to 2177.Del.2022 Ramesh Yadav the cases of CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal ITA No.2147/Del/2017 Corporate International Finance Service Ltd. vs. ITO Page 10 of 13 Chamaria 66 ITR 443 (SC) 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 underassessment, he can enhance the assessment. Just a…

Romesh Yadav, Ghaziabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2173/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 2172/Del/2022 , A.Y. 2012-13 Ita No. 2173/Del/2022, A.Y. 2013-14 Ita No. 2174/Del/2022, A.Y. 2014-15

Section 245HSection 246ASection 250(6)

…t, useful reference may also be made to Hon’ble Apex Court's decisions in 2172 to 2177.Del.2022 Ramesh Yadav the cases of CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal ITA No.2147/Del/2017 Corporate International Finance Service Ltd. vs. ITO Page 10 of 13 Chamaria 66 ITR 443 (SC) 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 underassessment, he can enhance the assessment. Just a…

Romesh Yadav, Ghaziabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2172/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 2172/Del/2022 , A.Y. 2012-13 Ita No. 2173/Del/2022, A.Y. 2013-14 Ita No. 2174/Del/2022, A.Y. 2014-15

Section 245HSection 246ASection 250(6)

…t, useful reference may also be made to Hon’ble Apex Court's decisions in 2172 to 2177.Del.2022 Ramesh Yadav the cases of CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal ITA No.2147/Del/2017 Corporate International Finance Service Ltd. vs. ITO Page 10 of 13 Chamaria 66 ITR 443 (SC) 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 underassessment, he can enhance the assessment. Just a…

Shri Shri Sushil Kumar Agrawal, Korba, Korba(Cg) vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range Korba, Korba(Cg)

In the result, appeal of the assesee in ITA No

ITA 94/BIL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 93 & 94/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Sushil Kumar Agrawal, Prop. Of M/S. Shrikishan & Co., T.P Nagar, Korba (C.G.) Pan : Acgpa4350B .......अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Korba (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Y.K Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Choudhary N.C Roy, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 40Section 68

…, therefore, the same on account of the said serious legal infirmity was liable to be struck down. The Ld. AR in support of his aforesaid contention had relied on the following judicial pronouncements: (i) CIT Vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria (1967) 66 ITR 443 (SC) (ii) Gedore Tools Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1999) 238 ITR 268 (Del.) 66 Shri Sushil Kumar Agrawal Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range, Korba ITA Nos. 93 & 94 /RPR/2017 (iii) C. Anitha Vs. CIT (2017) 88 Taxmann.com 53 (Mad.) (iv) Saheli Synthetics P. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2008) 302 ITR 126 (Guj.) 61. Per contra, the Ld. DR relied on the orders of…

Shri Shri Sushil Kumar Agrawal, Korba, Korba(Cg) vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range Korba, Korba(Cg)

In the result, appeal of the assesee in ITA No

ITA 93/BIL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 93 & 94/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Sushil Kumar Agrawal, Prop. Of M/S. Shrikishan & Co., T.P Nagar, Korba (C.G.) Pan : Acgpa4350B .......अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Korba (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Y.K Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Choudhary N.C Roy, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 40Section 68

…, therefore, the same on account of the said serious legal infirmity was liable to be struck down. The Ld. AR in support of his aforesaid contention had relied on the following judicial pronouncements: (i) CIT Vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria (1967) 66 ITR 443 (SC) (ii) Gedore Tools Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1999) 238 ITR 268 (Del.) 66 Shri Sushil Kumar Agrawal Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range, Korba ITA Nos. 93 & 94 /RPR/2017 (iii) C. Anitha Vs. CIT (2017) 88 Taxmann.com 53 (Mad.) (iv) Saheli Synthetics P. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2008) 302 ITR 126 (Guj.) 61. Per contra, the Ld. DR relied on the orders of…

Reliable Finance Corp. (P) Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 21(2), New Delhi

ITA 35/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmareliable Finance Corp. New Vs. Ito Ward-21(2) New Delhi Delhi Appellant Respondent Pan: Aaacr0282Q

Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 251

…A) 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 Hon’ble Apex Court’s decisions in the cases of CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Reliable Finance Corp. Pvt Ltd. 3 Chamaria 66 ITR 443 (SC) 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 underassessment, he can enhance the assessment. Just a…

Nisarg Enterprise Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 278/AHD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Ld Acit, Circle - 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad. This Claim Was Referred In Submission To Cit(A) In Letter Dt 29-9-2021. 3. In Law & In Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Has Grossly Erred In In Dismissing Appellant'S Ground Of Charging Interest U/S.234A Of I.T. Act For Rs.1,076/-.

For Appellant: Shri Hemanshu Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 244ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…dealt with an issue during the course of the assessment proceedings or in the assessment order, the Id. CIT(A) has no power to deal with the same. Reliance is placed on the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria (1967) 66 ITR 443 (SC), has held as under: - "The principle that emerges as a result of the authorities of this Court is that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has no jurisdiction, under s. 31(3) of the Act, to assess a source of income which has not been processed by the Income- tax Officer and which is not disclosed either in the returns filed by the assessee…

Geetanjali Hotels & Promoters Pvt Ltd, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 299/JPR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya ( Adv.) &For Respondent: Ms. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)a
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 251(2)Section 36(1)(iii)

…i) or otherwise on the facts of present case. Thus, there is complete non application of mind by the AO on the aspect of allow ability of the claim of interest u/s 36(1)(iii). 10. Supporting case laws: 10.1CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria (1967) 66 ITR 443 (SC) 10.2CIT vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC) 10.3 CIT vs. Associated Garments Makers (1992) 197 ITR 350 (Raj)/(1992) 64 Taxmann 215 ( RAJ HC)(DPB 47-48) It was held under: Geetanjali Hotels & Promoters Pvt. Ltd. “6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and have looked into the provisions of law.…

Geetanjali Hotels & Promoters Pvt Ltd, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 298/JPR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya ( Adv.) &For Respondent: Ms. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)a
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 251(2)Section 36(1)(iii)

…i) or otherwise on the facts of present case. Thus, there is complete non application of mind by the AO on the aspect of allow ability of the claim of interest u/s 36(1)(iii). 10. Supporting case laws: 10.1CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria (1967) 66 ITR 443 (SC) 10.2CIT vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC) 10.3 CIT vs. Associated Garments Makers (1992) 197 ITR 350 (Raj)/(1992) 64 Taxmann 215 ( RAJ HC)(DPB 47-48) It was held under: Geetanjali Hotels & Promoters Pvt. Ltd. “6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and have looked into the provisions of law.…

M/S. Angelica Properties Private Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner Income-Tax

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1738/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Hon’Ble Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 403/Pun/2015 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vason Engineers Ltd., Theadditional Commissioner Of (Formerly Angelica Properties Pvt. Vs Income Tax, Range1, Pune. Ltd.,) 301, Phoenix, Opp.Residency Club, Bund Garden Road, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 1738/Pun/2016 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Angelica Properties Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Opp. Grand Hyatt Hotel, Vs Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vimannagar, Puune – 411 014. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dharmesh Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Naveen Gupta – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Pune Dated 30.01.2015 & 09.06.2016 For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. The Assessee In Ita No.403/Pun/2015 For The A.Y.2010-11 Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts Enhancing The Income From Sale Of ‘Matrix It Building’ By Changing The Head Of Income From Capital Gains To Business Income Without Complying With The Principles Of Natural Justice & Without Giving Any Opportunity Of Hearing.

Section 14A

…try [44 ITR 891 (SC)] [Page 748-753 of PB No. 4] b. CIT v. B. P. Sherafudin [399 ITR 524 (Ker.)] [Page 754-769 of PB No. 4] c. Hari Mohan Sharma v. ACIT [110 Taxmann.com 119 (Del.)] [Page 578- 594 of PB No. 3] d. CIT v. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria [66 ITR 443 (SC)][Page 634-643 of PB No. 3] e. ITO v. Angel Cement Pvt. Ltd. [88 ITR(T) 616] [Page 644-662 of PB No.3] 7.4. Without prejudice, it is submitted that even if the enhancement carried out by the Ld. CIT(A) is held to be within his powers, the said enhancement has been carried out without complying with the provisions of s. 251(2) of the Act which…

Vascon Engineers Ltd (Successor to Angelica Properties Pvt. Ltd.), Pune vs. Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax, Pune

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 403/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Hon’Ble Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 403/Pun/2015 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vason Engineers Ltd., Theadditional Commissioner Of (Formerly Angelica Properties Pvt. Vs Income Tax, Range1, Pune. Ltd.,) 301, Phoenix, Opp.Residency Club, Bund Garden Road, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 1738/Pun/2016 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Angelica Properties Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Opp. Grand Hyatt Hotel, Vs Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vimannagar, Puune – 411 014. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dharmesh Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Naveen Gupta – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Pune Dated 30.01.2015 & 09.06.2016 For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. The Assessee In Ita No.403/Pun/2015 For The A.Y.2010-11 Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts Enhancing The Income From Sale Of ‘Matrix It Building’ By Changing The Head Of Income From Capital Gains To Business Income Without Complying With The Principles Of Natural Justice & Without Giving Any Opportunity Of Hearing.

Section 14A

…try [44 ITR 891 (SC)] [Page 748-753 of PB No. 4] b. CIT v. B. P. Sherafudin [399 ITR 524 (Ker.)] [Page 754-769 of PB No. 4] c. Hari Mohan Sharma v. ACIT [110 Taxmann.com 119 (Del.)] [Page 578- 594 of PB No. 3] d. CIT v. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria [66 ITR 443 (SC)][Page 634-643 of PB No. 3] e. ITO v. Angel Cement Pvt. Ltd. [88 ITR(T) 616] [Page 644-662 of PB No.3] 7.4. Without prejudice, it is submitted that even if the enhancement carried out by the Ld. CIT(A) is held to be within his powers, the said enhancement has been carried out without complying with the provisions of s. 251(2) of the Act which…

Sri. C. N. Babu, Ramanagara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1, Ramanagara

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1823/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2008-09 Shri. C. N. Babu, Vs. Ito, Prop: Hotel Chirag, Ward – 1, B. M. Road, Bidadi, Ramanagara. Ramanagaram Taluk – 562 109. Pan : Ajxpb 4497 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri. K. R. Narayana, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 14.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.09.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. K. R. Narayana, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 147Section 251Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

…ising its power of enhancement under Section 251 of the Act. The Tribunal in support of its conclusions relied on decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry 44 ITR 891 and CIT Vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria 66 ITR 443 (SC) and distinguished the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Nirbheram Daluram 224 ITR 610 (SC) by placing reliance of decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court CIT Vs. Sardari Lal & Co. 251 Page 4 of 4 ITR 864 (Delhi) and Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT Vs. B.P. Sharafudin 252 Taxman 326 (Ker). The addition mad…

Vardhaman Nagari Sahakari Path Sanstha Ltd, Aurangabad vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 1(5), Aurangabad

ITA 475/PUN/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 475/Pun/2020 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-2012 Vardhaman Nagari Sahakari Pathsanstha Ltd. Mahatma Gandhi Rd.,Vaijapur, Aurangabad–423701. . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(5), Aurangabad. . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Hari Krishan Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani सपिवधई की तधरऩख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 08/09/2022 घोर्णध की तधरऩख / Date Of Pronouncement : 09/09/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; This Appeal Challenges The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Aurangabad [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 19/07/2019 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which Ascended Out Of Assessment Order Dt. 31/12/2018 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(5) Aurangabad [For Short “Ao”] For Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2011-12. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 20

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

…nt amongst other grounds, has challenged the order of FAA on a legal ground of ex-parte dismissal in violation of principle of natural justice, socketing itself into decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in “CIT Vs Raj Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria” reported in 66 ITR 443 and of Hon’ble High Court Bombay in “CIT Vs Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)” reported at 297 CTR 614 and the decision of co- ordinate bench in “HV Metal ARC(P) Ltd. Vs ACIT” reported in 173 ITD 606. 6. Per contra, the learned departmental representative [for short “DR”] taken us through each of the decision relied by the appellant, and has submitt…

C.N.Babu, Ramanagaram vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Ramanagara

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

ITA 356/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2008-09 Shri. C. N. Babu, Vs. Ito, Prop: Hotel Chirag, Ward – 1, B. M. Road, Bidadi, Ramanagara. Ramanagaram Taluk – 562 109. Pan : Ajxpb 4497 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Raghavendra R. Chakravarthy, Ca Revenue By : Shri. K. R. Narayana, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.08.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.12.2018 Of Cit(A) – 3, Bengaluru, Relating To Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Ground Nos.1, 11 & 12 Raised By The Assessee Are General In Nature & Does Not Require Any Adjudication. Ground No.2 Raised By The Assessee Reads As Follows:

For Appellant: Shri. Raghavendra R. Chakravarthy, CAFor Respondent: Shri. K. R. Narayana, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 46ASection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2008-09 Shri. C. N. Babu, Vs. ITO, Prop: Hotel Chirag, Ward – 1, B. M. Road, Bidadi, Ramanagara. Ramanagaram Taluk – 562 109. PAN : AJXPB 4497 N APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Raghavendra R. Chakravarthy, CA Revenue by : Shri. K. R. Narayana, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 08.08.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 16.08.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan, Vice President This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated…