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

Lalit Kumar Dosi, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax CPC TDS, Ghaiabad

In the result, all the appeals by the assessees are allowed

ITA 2675/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 154Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 206CSection 234E

…source in an appeal:- ITA Nos.2658, 2660, 2675 to 2676, 2666 to 2670/Bang/2018 Page 8 of 11 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 of appeal was only with…

Pachisia Plastics Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax CPC TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, all the appeals by the assessees are allowed

ITA 2670/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 154Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 206CSection 234E

…source in an appeal:- ITA Nos.2658, 2660, 2675 to 2676, 2666 to 2670/Bang/2018 Page 8 of 11 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 of appeal was only with…

Pachisia Plastics Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax CPC TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, all the appeals by the assessees are allowed

ITA 2669/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 154Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 206CSection 234E

…source in an appeal:- ITA Nos.2658, 2660, 2675 to 2676, 2666 to 2670/Bang/2018 Page 8 of 11 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 of appeal was only with…

Pachisia Plastics Private Limited, Kanakapura vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax CPC TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, all the appeals by the assessees are allowed

ITA 2668/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 154Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 206CSection 234E

…source in an appeal:- ITA Nos.2658, 2660, 2675 to 2676, 2666 to 2670/Bang/2018 Page 8 of 11 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 of appeal was only with…

Pachisia Plastics Private Limited, Kanakapura vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax CPC TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, all the appeals by the assessees are allowed

ITA 2667/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 154Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 206CSection 234E

…source in an appeal:- ITA Nos.2658, 2660, 2675 to 2676, 2666 to 2670/Bang/2018 Page 8 of 11 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 of appeal was only with…

Pachisia Plastics Private Limited, Kanakpura vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax CPC TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, all the appeals by the assessees are allowed

ITA 2666/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 154Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 206CSection 234E

…source in an appeal:- ITA Nos.2658, 2660, 2675 to 2676, 2666 to 2670/Bang/2018 Page 8 of 11 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 of appeal was only with…

Lalit Kumar Dosi, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax CPC TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, all the appeals by the assessees are allowed

ITA 2660/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 154Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 206CSection 234E

…source in an appeal:- ITA Nos.2658, 2660, 2675 to 2676, 2666 to 2670/Bang/2018 Page 8 of 11 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 of appeal was only with…

Manoj Kumar Jaiswal, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax CPC TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, all the appeals by the assessees are allowed

ITA 2658/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 154Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 206CSection 234E

…source in an appeal:- ITA Nos.2658, 2660, 2675 to 2676, 2666 to 2670/Bang/2018 Page 8 of 11 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 of appeal was only with…

India Today Online Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 12(2), New Delhi

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6454/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuita Nos. 6453 & 6454/Del/2018 Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)

…the said issue was examined or mind was applied by learned AO. Thus, enhancement so made is without jurisdiction which is not permissible in law as has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria, reported in 66 ITR 443. 17. Further, on the issue of scope of enhancement he submitted that Ld. CIT(A) can only acquire jurisdiction for enhancement only when AO has examined the issue from point of view of its taxability and or applied his mind on any of the issue. If the issue has not been examined or touched by AO then enhancement is not permissible on such issue. In…

India Today Online Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 12(2), New Delhi

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6453/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuita Nos. 6453 & 6454/Del/2018 Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)

…the said issue was examined or mind was applied by learned AO. Thus, enhancement so made is without jurisdiction which is not permissible in law as has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria, reported in 66 ITR 443. 17. Further, on the issue of scope of enhancement he submitted that Ld. CIT(A) can only acquire jurisdiction for enhancement only when AO has examined the issue from point of view of its taxability and or applied his mind on any of the issue. If the issue has not been examined or touched by AO then enhancement is not permissible on such issue. In…

ACIT, Central Circle-15, New Delhi vs. Versatile Polytech P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, ITA No.2257/Del/2018 filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the

ITA 2257/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit, Vs Versatile Polytech P. Ltd., Central Circle-15, 25, Bazar Lane, New Delhi. Superior House, Bangali Market, New Delhi. Pan: Aaccv1244Q Assessment Year: 2014-15 Versatile Polytech P. Ltd., Vs. Acit, 25, Bazar Lane, Central Circle-15, Superior House, New Delhi. Bangali Market, New Delhi. Pan: Aaccv1244Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri V.K. Aggarwal, Ar & Ms Shweta Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Sulekha Verma, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : .03.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am:

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Aggarwal, AR &For Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT, DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 132(3)Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…f CIT vs. Union Tyres, 240 ITR 556 (Del) and CIT vs. Sardari Lal & Co. 251 ITR 864 and the Ltd. vs. DCIT, 2013-TIOL-903-ITAT-DEL. He also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria (1967) 66 ITR 443 (SC). 29. So far as the merit of the addition is concerned, he submitted that the valuation of shares of the assessee was done by Shri Harpal & Associates, a qualified Chartered Accountant at a value of Rs.261/- per share under Rule 11UA. However, the shares were issued at a value of Rs.260/- per share including premium of Rs.250/-. Referring…

Versatile Polytech P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-15, New Delhi

In the result, ITA No.2257/Del/2018 filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the

ITA 1088/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit, Vs Versatile Polytech P. Ltd., Central Circle-15, 25, Bazar Lane, New Delhi. Superior House, Bangali Market, New Delhi. Pan: Aaccv1244Q Assessment Year: 2014-15 Versatile Polytech P. Ltd., Vs. Acit, 25, Bazar Lane, Central Circle-15, Superior House, New Delhi. Bangali Market, New Delhi. Pan: Aaccv1244Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri V.K. Aggarwal, Ar & Ms Shweta Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Sulekha Verma, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : .03.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am:

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Aggarwal, AR &For Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT, DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 132(3)Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…f CIT vs. Union Tyres, 240 ITR 556 (Del) and CIT vs. Sardari Lal & Co. 251 ITR 864 and the Ltd. vs. DCIT, 2013-TIOL-903-ITAT-DEL. He also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria (1967) 66 ITR 443 (SC). 29. So far as the merit of the addition is concerned, he submitted that the valuation of shares of the assessee was done by Shri Harpal & Associates, a qualified Chartered Accountant at a value of Rs.261/- per share under Rule 11UA. However, the shares were issued at a value of Rs.260/- per share including premium of Rs.250/-. Referring…

Vikas Globalone Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 26(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2498/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Piyush KamalFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-D.R
Section 115JSection 37Section 80I

…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 30 ITA.No.2498/Del./2018 M/s. Vikas Globalone Ltd., (Now known as M/s. Vikas Ecotech Ltd.,) New Delhi. (SC). That also related to a case 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 p…

Sh. Swati Pawa, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is treated as partly allowed for statistical

ITA 3098/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 251(1)(c)

…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 Page 11 of 16 Fit for Publication ITA No.- 3098/Del/2016. (AM) (JM) Swati…

Shashikiran Shetty, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 44, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4019/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha () Shashi Kiran Shetty Vs Acit, Cent.Cir.44, Mumbai 5Th Floor, Aavashya House Cst Road, Kalina, Santacruz (E), Mumbai 400 098 Pan : Ameps5601B Appellant Respondednt

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 274

…1 ITA 4019/Mum/2014 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI Before Shri Pawan Singh(JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND Shri G Manjunatha (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Shashi Kiran Shetty vs ACIT, Cent.Cir.44, Mumbai 5th Floor, Aavashya House CST Road, Kalina, Santacruz (E), Mumbai 400 098 PAN : AMEPS5601B APPELLANT RESPONDEDNT Appellant by Shri Paresh Shaparia Respondent by Shri R Manjunatha Swamy Date of hearing 08-01-2019 Date of pronouncement 01-02-2019 O R D E R Per G Manjunatha, AM : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of the CIT(A)- 38, Mumbai dated 25-03-2014 and it pertains t…

Neeraj Singal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 3, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1490/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Adv, AshwaniFor Respondent: Shri S.S Rana CIT DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 68

…e circumstances of the case, the AAC was not competent to enhance the assessment of the appellant.”—Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry vs. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 342 (Bom) : (1958) 11 TAX (3) - 149 : TC7R.580 affirmed  CIT Vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria (1967) 66 ITR 443 (SC) (pages 649- 654 of PB-5): The Hon‟ble Supreme Court held as under: “The AAC has no jurisdiction, under s. 31(3), to assess a source of income which has not been processed by the ITO and which is not disclosed either in the returns filed by the assessee or in the assessment order, and therefore the AAC cannot travel beyond the subject-matter o…

Neeraj Singal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 3, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1488/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Adv, AshwaniFor Respondent: Shri S.S Rana CIT DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 68

…e circumstances of the case, the AAC was not competent to enhance the assessment of the appellant.”—Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry vs. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 342 (Bom) : (1958) 11 TAX (3) - 149 : TC7R.580 affirmed  CIT Vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria (1967) 66 ITR 443 (SC) (pages 649- 654 of PB-5): The Hon‟ble Supreme Court held as under: “The AAC has no jurisdiction, under s. 31(3), to assess a source of income which has not been processed by the ITO and which is not disclosed either in the returns filed by the assessee or in the assessment order, and therefore the AAC cannot travel beyond the subject-matter o…

Ashish Dham, Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is treated as partly allowed for statistical

ITA 1953/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar Dora, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 24Section 250Section 69

…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,…

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

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

ITA 979/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Dec 2018AY 2014-15
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.…

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

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

ITA 978/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Dec 2018AY 2013-14
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.…