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 367,515 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

DCIT, Kannur vs. M/S Manjoo & Co., Kannur

ITA 625/COCH/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Dec 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm Assessment Year: 2006-07

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…Income Tax (Appeals) is co-terminus with that of I.T.A. No.625/ Coch/2017 the Assessing Officer to enhance the assessment too. Barring this, the Act does not contemplate a withdrawal of the appeal filed by an assessee. 9.2 In the decision reported in [1967] 66 ITR 443 (Commissioner of Income-tax v. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria), the Apex Court pointed out that the right of appeal under Section 31 under the 1922 Act, to which Section 25 of the 1961 Act is in pari materia, is given to the assessee alone as against an order of assessment. When the assessee does not choose to file an appeal, as far as…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad vs. Mylan Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 12/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

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

For Respondent: Sh. YVST Sai, D.R
Section 251Section 28Section 32Section 32(1)Section 37(1)Section 43(1)Section 68

…t is prohibited in respect of issues that were never considered by the AO during the assessment proceedings. In respect of his contention, he placed reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria, [1967] 66 ITR 443 (SC). He submitted that various High Courts and Tribunals have held that CIT(A) does not have the power to question the taxability of income from a new source, which was not considered by the AO. In support of this submission, he placed reliance on the following other decisions: 1. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry, 44 ITR 891 (SC) 2. Sardarilal & co., 25…

Mylan Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2335/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

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

For Respondent: Sh. YVST Sai, D.R
Section 251Section 28Section 32Section 32(1)Section 37(1)Section 43(1)Section 68

…t is prohibited in respect of issues that were never considered by the AO during the assessment proceedings. In respect of his contention, he placed reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria, [1967] 66 ITR 443 (SC). He submitted that various High Courts and Tribunals have held that CIT(A) does not have the power to question the taxability of income from a new source, which was not considered by the AO. In support of this submission, he placed reliance on the following other decisions: 1. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry, 44 ITR 891 (SC) 2. Sardarilal & co., 25…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Vatika Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 3426/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Deepika Mittal, CIT DR

…as such, he was not empowered to enhance the income which is a different source of income and relied upon the decisions of CIT vs. Sardari Lal & Co. (2001) 251 ITR 864 (Del.), CIT vs. Union Tyres 240 ITR 556 and CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria 66 ITR 443. 14 ITA Nos.2489 & 3426/Del./2014 21. However, on the other hand, ld. DR for the revenue in order to repel the arguments advanced by the ld. AR for the assessee contended that Ld. CIT (A) had got the statutory power to make enhancement and in case, the AO was silent about an item on which enhancement was made by the ld. CIT (A), it does not mea…

Vatika Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 2489/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Deepika Mittal, CIT DR

…as such, he was not empowered to enhance the income which is a different source of income and relied upon the decisions of CIT vs. Sardari Lal & Co. (2001) 251 ITR 864 (Del.), CIT vs. Union Tyres 240 ITR 556 and CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria 66 ITR 443. 14 ITA Nos.2489 & 3426/Del./2014 21. However, on the other hand, ld. DR for the revenue in order to repel the arguments advanced by the ld. AR for the assessee contended that Ld. CIT (A) had got the statutory power to make enhancement and in case, the AO was silent about an item on which enhancement was made by the ld. CIT (A), it does not mea…

Prism Cement Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 34, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2545/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri NS JangpangiFor Respondent: Shri S.E.Dastur, AR
Section 143(3)Section 401A(9)Section 40A(9)

…the assessee can make a legal claim before the Tribunal for the first time, so long as the relevant facts are on record in respect of that item before the lower authorities. 17. The Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamari [1967] 66 ITR 443 (SC) which deals with power of CITA u/s 251 has held as under: As we have already stated, it is not open to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to travel outside the record. i.e. the return made by the assessee or the assessment order of the Income -tax Officer with a view to find out new sources of income ........ ITA Nos. 1757&2545/Mum/2015 35…

DCIT CC 6(1) (Earlier CC-34), Mumbai vs. Prism Cement Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1757/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri NS JangpangiFor Respondent: Shri S.E.Dastur, AR
Section 143(3)Section 401A(9)Section 40A(9)

…the assessee can make a legal claim before the Tribunal for the first time, so long as the relevant facts are on record in respect of that item before the lower authorities. 17. The Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamari [1967] 66 ITR 443 (SC) which deals with power of CITA u/s 251 has held as under: As we have already stated, it is not open to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to travel outside the record. i.e. the return made by the assessee or the assessment order of the Income -tax Officer with a view to find out new sources of income ........ ITA Nos. 1757&2545/Mum/2015 35…

DCIT Cir 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Larsen & Toubro Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 262/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G.Manjunathadcit-2(2)(1) Vs. M/S Larsen & Toubro Room No.545, 5Th Floor Limited Aaykar Bhawan L& T House, N.M.Marg M.K.Road Ballard Estate Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 Pan/Gir No.Aaacl0140P Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…e relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dolgobinda Paricha Vs. Nimai Charan Misra & Others (1959) AIR 914 1959 SCR and also the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Rai Bahadur Hardutory Motilal Chamaria (1967) 66 ITR 443 (SC) 7. The Ld. AR for the assesee, strongly supporting order of the Ld. CIT(A) submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has appreciated the facts, 6 Larsen & Toubro Limited in light of reasons recorded by the Ld. AO and assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the I.T.Act, 1961, to come to the conclusion that the assessment has been reopened on change of…

Tata Moters Limited (Formerly Known As Tata Engineering & Locomotive Company Ltd.), Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT, Cir..-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3333/MUM/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm M/S. Tata Motors Limited Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Tata Income Tax-2(1), Engineering & Locomotive Aayakar Bhavan Company Limited M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 Bombay House, 24 020 Homi Mody Street Hutatma Chowk Mumbai – 400 001 Pan/Gir No.Aaact2727Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Tata Motors Limited Income Tax-2(1), (Formerly Known As Tata Aayakar Bhavan Engineering & Locomotive M.K. Marg, Mumbai – Company Limited 400 020 Bombay House, 24 Homi Mody Street Hutatma Chowk Mumbai – 400 001 Pan/Gir No.Aaact2727Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 43B

…In this scenario, can this be a subject matter of enhancement by the ld. CIT(A) is to be looked into. In this regard, the ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutray Motilal Chamaria reported in 66 ITR 443 (SC) wherein the facts of the issue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the decision rendered thereon are as under:- “2. The respondent (hereinafter called the assessee) is an individual carrying on business in Jute, Cloth and Films, The assessment year is 1952-53, the corresponding accounting year being the, calendar year 1951 for all business…

Pawan Kumar Singhal, Ghaziabad vs. ACIT, Circle- 2, Ghaziabad

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1005/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 115BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

…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,…

M/S. Sava Healthcare Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

ITA 1067/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Ms Nandita Kanchan
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(8)Section 92C(3)

…4/PUN/2016, relating to assessment years 2004-05 & 2005-06 and ITA No.21/PUN/2015, relating to assessment year 2004-05, order dated 16.08.2017 b) CIT Vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC) c) CIT Vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria (1967) 66 ITR 443 (SC) d) DCIT Vs. Sandvik Information Technology AB (2017) 80 taxmann.com 295 (Pune-Trib.) 42. The Ld. DR in reply to the arguments of assessee vis-a-vis grounds of appeal No.2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 stated that allegations of assessee were that there were two transactions. However, transactions are inter-dependent and whole business operandi was such tha…

M/S. Sava Healthcare Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

ITA 1066/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Ms Nandita Kanchan
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(8)Section 92C(3)

…4/PUN/2016, relating to assessment years 2004-05 & 2005-06 and ITA No.21/PUN/2015, relating to assessment year 2004-05, order dated 16.08.2017 b) CIT Vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC) c) CIT Vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria (1967) 66 ITR 443 (SC) d) DCIT Vs. Sandvik Information Technology AB (2017) 80 taxmann.com 295 (Pune-Trib.) 42. The Ld. DR in reply to the arguments of assessee vis-a-vis grounds of appeal No.2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 stated that allegations of assessee were that there were two transactions. However, transactions are inter-dependent and whole business operandi was such tha…

M/S. Sava Healthcare Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

ITA 1065/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Ms Nandita Kanchan
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(8)Section 92C(3)

…4/PUN/2016, relating to assessment years 2004-05 & 2005-06 and ITA No.21/PUN/2015, relating to assessment year 2004-05, order dated 16.08.2017 b) CIT Vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC) c) CIT Vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria (1967) 66 ITR 443 (SC) d) DCIT Vs. Sandvik Information Technology AB (2017) 80 taxmann.com 295 (Pune-Trib.) 42. The Ld. DR in reply to the arguments of assessee vis-a-vis grounds of appeal No.2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 stated that allegations of assessee were that there were two transactions. However, transactions are inter-dependent and whole business operandi was such tha…

M/S. Sava Healthcare Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

ITA 1064/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Ms Nandita Kanchan
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(8)Section 92C(3)

…4/PUN/2016, relating to assessment years 2004-05 & 2005-06 and ITA No.21/PUN/2015, relating to assessment year 2004-05, order dated 16.08.2017 b) CIT Vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC) c) CIT Vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria (1967) 66 ITR 443 (SC) d) DCIT Vs. Sandvik Information Technology AB (2017) 80 taxmann.com 295 (Pune-Trib.) 42. The Ld. DR in reply to the arguments of assessee vis-a-vis grounds of appeal No.2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 stated that allegations of assessee were that there were two transactions. However, transactions are inter-dependent and whole business operandi was such tha…

M/S. Sava Healthcare Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

ITA 1063/PUN/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Ms Nandita Kanchan
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(8)Section 92C(3)

…4/PUN/2016, relating to assessment years 2004-05 & 2005-06 and ITA No.21/PUN/2015, relating to assessment year 2004-05, order dated 16.08.2017 b) CIT Vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC) c) CIT Vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria (1967) 66 ITR 443 (SC) d) DCIT Vs. Sandvik Information Technology AB (2017) 80 taxmann.com 295 (Pune-Trib.) 42. The Ld. DR in reply to the arguments of assessee vis-a-vis grounds of appeal No.2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 stated that allegations of assessee were that there were two transactions. However, transactions are inter-dependent and whole business operandi was such tha…

M/S. Sava Healthcare Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

ITA 1062/PUN/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Ms Nandita Kanchan
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(8)Section 92C(3)

…4/PUN/2016, relating to assessment years 2004-05 & 2005-06 and ITA No.21/PUN/2015, relating to assessment year 2004-05, order dated 16.08.2017 b) CIT Vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC) c) CIT Vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria (1967) 66 ITR 443 (SC) d) DCIT Vs. Sandvik Information Technology AB (2017) 80 taxmann.com 295 (Pune-Trib.) 42. The Ld. DR in reply to the arguments of assessee vis-a-vis grounds of appeal No.2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 stated that allegations of assessee were that there were two transactions. However, transactions are inter-dependent and whole business operandi was such tha…

Manmohansingh S. Ranawat, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-2(5), Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5393/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari, D.R
Section 144Section 251(1)(a)Section 37(1)Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69

…TR 556 (Del-HC) 4. CIT vs. Nirbheram Daluram 5 Taxman 84 (MP-HC) 5. CIT vs. Associated Garments Makers 64Taxman215(Raj-HC) 6. CIT vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry 44 ITR 891 (SC) (decision of Bom-HC (344 ITR 342) 7. CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria 66 ITR 443 (SC) 8. Zuberi Enginnering Company vs. DCIT 103 taxmann.com 196 (Jaipur-ITAT) 9. Gurinder Mohan Singh Nindrajog vs. CIT 348 ITR 170 (Del-HC) 7. The Ld. D.R., on the other hand, relied heavily on the order of Ld. CIT(A) by submitting that the AO has framed assessment under section 144 of the Act and there was no occasion to discuss and investigate…

M/S Promptec Renewable Energy Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax CPC TDS, Bangalore

In the result, all these 17 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3098/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri S. Ganesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.N. Dhandapani, JCIT (DR)
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 234ESection 251(1)(c)

…ich arose for consideration before the AO and he cannot introduce a new source in an appeal:- 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry [1962] 44 ITR 891 (SC). 2. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria [1967] 66 ITR 443 (SC) 3. Commissioner of Income Tax v. National Co. Ltd. [1993] 199 ITR 445 (Calcutta). 12. On the parity of ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision, it was submitted that the action of the CIT(Appeals) in declaring return of TDS filed by the assessee as non est was not the subject matter of appeal and the subject matter ITA Nos. 3092 to 3108/Ba…

M/S Promptec Renewable Energy Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax CPC TDS, Bangalore

In the result, all these 17 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3097/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri S. Ganesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.N. Dhandapani, JCIT (DR)
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 234ESection 251(1)(c)

…ich arose for consideration before the AO and he cannot introduce a new source in an appeal:- 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry [1962] 44 ITR 891 (SC). 2. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria [1967] 66 ITR 443 (SC) 3. Commissioner of Income Tax v. National Co. Ltd. [1993] 199 ITR 445 (Calcutta). 12. On the parity of ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision, it was submitted that the action of the CIT(Appeals) in declaring return of TDS filed by the assessee as non est was not the subject matter of appeal and the subject matter ITA Nos. 3092 to 3108/Ba…

M/S Promoptec Renewable Energy Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax CPC TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, all these 17 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3096/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri S. Ganesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.N. Dhandapani, JCIT (DR)
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 234ESection 251(1)(c)

…ich arose for consideration before the AO and he cannot introduce a new source in an appeal:- 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry [1962] 44 ITR 891 (SC). 2. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria [1967] 66 ITR 443 (SC) 3. Commissioner of Income Tax v. National Co. Ltd. [1993] 199 ITR 445 (Calcutta). 12. On the parity of ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision, it was submitted that the action of the CIT(Appeals) in declaring return of TDS filed by the assessee as non est was not the subject matter of appeal and the subject matter ITA Nos. 3092 to 3108/Ba…