CIT v. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry

44 ITR 891Supreme Court of India1962#284 most cited

What is CIT v. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry authority for?

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) cannot enhance an assessment by introducing a new source of income or by changing the head of income during appellate proceedings.

278

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry · 44 ITR 891 · CIT(A) powers · enhancement of assessment · new source of income · change of head of income · Section 251 · appellate proceedings · limitation on CIT(A) powers

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 148Section 263Section 69ASection 132Section 251(1)(a)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 31(3)place of effective managementsection 6(3)section 127(1)peak credit theorylegal expensessection 31ddtsection 251(1)(a)section 251(1)section 131(1a)section 251

Judgments citing CIT v. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry

Shri Damjibhai Lekhrajbhai Thavrani, Junagadh vs. The Income Tax Officer-Ward 1(2)(4), Rajkot

ITA 16/RJT/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

…the case of Jute Corporation of India Limited vs CIT (1991) 187 ITR 688 (SC). In this regard it is further clarified that there is no new source of income in category 'A' case, as defined by Honourable Supreme Court in CIT Vs Shapoorji Pallonji Mistri (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC). To summarize, Ld. ITAT as plenary powers which Ld. CIT(A) as well as Ld. assessing officer possess and the prayer of Revenue is limited to sustaining additions already made by Ld. assessing officer by applying deeming provisions. c) Whether the assessee is an Angadiya/ Shroff? or is engaged in extra Commercium Activity? a) In various orders…

The Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Cen. Cir.-1, Rajkot vs. Bharatkumar Ishwarbhai Bhatiya, Rajkot

ITA 49/RJT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

…the case of Jute Corporation of India Limited vs CIT (1991) 187 ITR 688 (SC). In this regard it is further clarified that there is no new source of income in category 'A' case, as defined by Honourable Supreme Court in CIT Vs Shapoorji Pallonji Mistri (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC). To summarize, Ld. ITAT as plenary powers which Ld. CIT(A) as well as Ld. assessing officer possess and the prayer of Revenue is limited to sustaining additions already made by Ld. assessing officer by applying deeming provisions. c) Whether the assessee is an Angadiya/ Shroff? or is engaged in extra Commercium Activity? a) In various orders…

Bharatkumar Ishwarbhai Bhatiya, Rajkot vs. Asstt. Commr. of Income Tax, Cen. Cir.-1, Rajkot

ITA 4/RJT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

…the case of Jute Corporation of India Limited vs CIT (1991) 187 ITR 688 (SC). In this regard it is further clarified that there is no new source of income in category 'A' case, as defined by Honourable Supreme Court in CIT Vs Shapoorji Pallonji Mistri (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC). To summarize, Ld. ITAT as plenary powers which Ld. CIT(A) as well as Ld. assessing officer possess and the prayer of Revenue is limited to sustaining additions already made by Ld. assessing officer by applying deeming provisions. c) Whether the assessee is an Angadiya/ Shroff? or is engaged in extra Commercium Activity? a) In various orders…

Shri Bharatkumar Ishwarbhai Bhatiya, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Rajkot-Gujarat

ITA 171/RJT/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jun 2025AY 2006-07

…the case of Jute Corporation of India Limited vs CIT (1991) 187 ITR 688 (SC). In this regard it is further clarified that there is no new source of income in category 'A' case, as defined by Honourable Supreme Court in CIT Vs Shapoorji Pallonji Mistri (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC). To summarize, Ld. ITAT as plenary powers which Ld. CIT(A) as well as Ld. assessing officer possess and the prayer of Revenue is limited to sustaining additions already made by Ld. assessing officer by applying deeming provisions. c) Whether the assessee is an Angadiya/ Shroff? or is engaged in extra Commercium Activity? a) In various orders…

Paras Rameshchandra Doshi, Rajkot vs. The PCIT - 1, Rajkot

ITA 280/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Jun 2025AY 2013-14
Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 69A

…t the case of Jute Corporation of India Limited vs CIT (1991) 187 ITR 688 (SC). In this regard it is further clarified that there is no new source of income in category ‘A’case, as defined by Honourable Supreme Court in CIT Vs Shapoorji Pallonji Mistri (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC). To summarize, Ld. ITAT as plenary powers which Ld. CIT(A) as well as Ld. assessing officer possess and the prayer of Revenue is limited to sustaining additions already made by Ld. assessing officer by applying deeming provisions. c) Whether the assessee is an Angadiya/ Shroff? or is engaged in extra Commercium Activity? a) In various orders…

Ochhab Lal Jain, Udaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Udaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 429/JODH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur29 May 2025AY 2016-17
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69A

…ITA No. 428 & 429/Jodh/2025 Ochhab Lal Jain, Udaipur IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR. BEFORE: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 428 & 429/Jodh/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2016-17 Ochhab Lal Jain Vs. 10, Shahi Complex, Hiran Magri, Sec.-11, Udaipur. The DCIT Central Circle-1 Udaipur. PAN/GIR No.: AKUPJ5708Q Appellant Respondent Appellant by Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Adv. Respondent by Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 06/05/2025 Date of Pronouncement 29/05/2025 ORDER PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. The assessee has fi…

Ochhab Lal Jain, Udaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Udiapur, Udaipur

ITA 428/JODH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur29 May 2025AY 2014-15
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69A

…ITA No. 428 & 429/Jodh/2025 Ochhab Lal Jain, Udaipur IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR. BEFORE: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Ι.Τ.Α. No. 428 & 429/Jodh/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2016-17 Ochhab Lal Jain Vs. The DCIT 10, Shahi Complex, Central Circle-1 Hiran Magri, Sec.-11, Udaipur. Udaipur. PAN/GIR No.: AKUPJ5708Q Appellant Respondent Appellant by Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Adv. Respondent by Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 06/05/2025 Date of Pronouncement 29/05/2025 ORDER PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. The assessee has f…

Niraj Rathi & Sons HUF, Ghaziabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ghaziabad

Appeal is allowed

ITA 5941/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

Section 147Section 251(1)(a)Section 56(2)(vii)

…ramed on 12.11.2019 had made an unexplained investment addition of Rs. 14,73,340/- in the assessee's hands which stands converted to that under section 56(2)(vii); and, therefore, it is hereby concluded in the light of CIT Vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC); CIT Vs. Sardari Lal & Co. (2001) 251 ITR 864 (Del.) and CIT Vs. Union Tyres (1999) 240 ITR 556 (Del.) that such a course of action is not available to the CIT(A) in exercises of his lower appellate jurisdiction under section 251(1)(a) of the Act. - 4. That being the clinching factual position, the tribunal hereby finds no merit in the impug…

Emaar India Limited, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward-74(2), New Delhi, Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 164/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Emaar India Limited, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 306-308, 3Rd Floor, Tds, Ward-74(2), Square One, C-2, New Delhi District Centre Saket, New Delhi Pan: Aabce4308B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. Sh. Deepesh Jain, Adv. Ms. Aditi Garg, Ca Department By Sh. Ramesh Chand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14.05.2025 Order

Section 194CSection 194ISection 201Section 201(1)Section 251(1)

…learned Assessing Officer has treated the assessee as the assessee in default for not having deducting TDS under Section 194I of the Act. We accordingly find no merit in the learned CIT(A)’s impugned action in light of CIT Vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC); CIT Vs. Sardari Lal & Co. (2001) 251 ITR 864 (Del.) and CIT Vs. Union Tyres (1999) 240 ITR 556 (Del.) that no such jurisdiction is vested in him of changing a head of income u/s 251(1) of the Act. We thus accept the assessee’s instant first and foremost legal 2 | P a g e ground to delete the impugned section 201(1) r.w.s. 201(1A) TDS recove…

Excel Infotech Limites, Delhi vs. ACIT, Cenral Circle-30, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1065/DEL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganeshita No. 1065/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Excel Infotech Ltd., Vs Acit, Sachin Saxena & Co., Central Circle-30, Office No. 101 & 102, 1St Floor, A-1, New Delhi-110055 Madhuban Tower, Veer Savarkar Block, Shakarpur, Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaace2098K Assessee By : Sh. S. Krishnan, Adv. & Sh. Harshit Chauhan, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2009-10, Arises Against The Cit(A)-30, New Delhi’S In Case No. 161/16- 17/2595 Dated 04.09.2019, In Proceedings U/S 147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. S. Krishnan, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 3

…that it has admittedly come on record that making this third addition during the course of enhancement by the CIT(A) amounts to changing the head of the addition itself, already held as not sustainable in law going by CIT vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC), CIT vs. Sardari Lal & Co. (2001) 251 ITR 864(Del.) and CIT vs. Union Tyres (1999) 240 ITR 556(Del). We thus quash the impugned re-opening as 6 Excel Infotech Ltd. well as delete this third addition in very terms i.e. on legality as well as on merits. 8. No other ground or argument has been pressed before us at this stage. 9. This assessee’…

Satish, Jind vs. Assessing Officer, Jind

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5619/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 5619/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Satish, Vs Income Tax Officer, House No. 680, Nirjan, Ward-1, Jind Haryana-126102 Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Dfups0022C Assessee By: None Revenue By : Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.04.2025 Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 54B

…r as the assessee’s former disallowance/addition u/s 54B deduction is concerned, the same is found to be an instance of enhancement and not sustainable in law since, amounting to adding a new head of income of going by CIT vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC), CIT vs. Sardari Lal & Co. (2001) 251 ITR 864(Del.) and CIT vs. Union Tyres (1999) 240 ITR 556(Del). The impugned disallowance of Rs.25,00,000/- stands deleted therefore. 5. Next comes the second substantive issue of correctness of the assessee’s cash deposits addition amounting to Rs.9,00,000/-. It has come on record that the assessee and h…

The Deputy Commr. of Income Tax, Cen. Cir.1, Rajkot vs. Jayesh Harakhji Patel, Rajkot

ITA 76/RJT/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Mar 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.59/Rjt/2018 &

For Appellant: Shri Samir Bhuptani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT.DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…the case of Jute Corporation of India Limited vs CIT (1991) 187 ITR 688 (SC). In this regard it is further clarified that there is no new source of income in category 'A' case, as defined by Honourable Supreme Court in CIT Vs Shapoorji Pallonji Mistri (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC). To summarize, Ld. ITAT as plenary powers which Ld. CIT(A) as well as Ld. assessing officer possess and the prayer of Revenue is limited to sustaining additions already made by Ld. assessing officer by applying deeming provisions. Page 10 ITA Nos. 59 & 76/RJT/2018 (Jayesh Harakhji Patel & IT(SS)A Nos. 86 to 89 & 97 to 99/Rjt/2018 (Ravi V. Hir…

Jayesh Harakhji Patel, Rajkot vs. Asstt. Commr. of Income Tax, Cen. Cir.1, Rajkot

ITA 59/RJT/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Mar 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.59/Rjt/2018 &

For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…the case of Jute Corporation of India Limited vs CIT (1991) 187 ITR 688 (SC). In this regard it is further clarified that there is no new source of income in category 'A' case, as defined by Honourable Supreme Court in CIT Vs Shapoorji Pallonji Mistri (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC). To summarize, Ld. ITAT as plenary powers which Ld. CIT(A) as well as Ld. assessing officer possess and the prayer of Revenue is limited to sustaining additions already made by Ld. assessing officer by applying deeming provisions. Page 10 ITA Nos. 59 & 76/RJT/2018 (Jayesh Harakhji Patel & IT(SS)A Nos. 86 to 89 & 97 to 99/Rjt/2018 (Ravi V. Hir…

Mohit Gupta HUF, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 44(6), Delhi

ITA 2511/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2018-19 A.Y. 2019-20

…VS Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-63(1), New Delhi [2019] 110 taxmann.com 119 (Delhi - Trib.) c) CIT VS Union Tyres (1999) 107 Taxmann 447 (Delhi High Court) d) Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria 66 ITR 443 (SC) e) Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry 44 ITR 891 (SC) 17.6 The Ld DR has drawn attention of the Bench to the Judgement of Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Nirbheram Daluram 224 ITR 610 to argue that the powers of CIT(A) are wide and CIT(A) can make enhancement on new source of income. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that the case laws relied upon by him have considered and distingui…

Sharp Business Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 717/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Sh. Vinay Sharma, Dcit, Central Circle-18, B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, New Delhi Ghaziabad Pan: Bdqps4406L (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. No.60/Del/2019 [Arising Out Of Ita No.712/Del/2019] Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Dcit, Sh. Vinay Sharma, B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, Central Circle-18, Ghaziabad New Delhi Pan: Bdqps4406L (Appellant) (Respondent) With Ita Nos.716 & 717/Del/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Vs. Sh. Dheer Chand Sharma, Dcit, Central Circle-18, B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, New Delhi Ghaziabad Pan: Bdlps0502C (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. Nos.64 & 65/Del/2019 [Arising Out Of Ita Nos.716 & 717/Del/2019] Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Vs. Dcit, Sh. Dheer Chand Sharma B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, Central Circle-18, Ghaziabad New Delhi Pan: Bdlps0502C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144Section 153ASection 37(1)

…g entries as bogus, the CIT(A)’s action adding the above percentage of 2.5% representing the profit element therein, amounts to an enhancement under section 251(1)(a) of the Act which is not sustainable in law going by CIT Vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC); CIT Vs. Sardari Lal & Co. (2001) 251 ITR 864 (Del.) and CIT Vs. Union Tyres (1999) 240 ITR 556 (Del.). He therefore vehemently presses the assessee’s cross objections that in case we do not agree to the foregoing legal argument, the impugned entries commission could not be allowed to exceed 0.15% to 0.5% margin only in such circumstances. 6…

Chetna Sundaram, Janak Puri Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle 70(1), Delhi

ITA 2512/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2018-19 A.Y. 2019-20

…VS Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-63(1), New Delhi [2019] 110 taxmann.com 119 (Delhi - Trib.) c) CIT VS Union Tyres (1999) 107 Taxmann 447 (Delhi High Court) d) Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria 66 ITR 443 (SC) e) Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry 44 ITR 891 (SC) 17.6 The Ld DR has drawn attention of the Bench to the Judgement of Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Nirbheram Daluram 224 ITR 610 to argue that the powers of CIT(A) are wide and CIT(A) can make enhancement on new source of income. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that the case laws relied upon by him have considered and distingui…

Devender Kumar, Rohtak vs. ITO, Ward 1, Rohtak

ITA 2509/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Delhi06 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2018-19 A.Y. 2019-20

…VS Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-63(1), New Delhi [2019] 110 taxmann.com 119 (Delhi - Trib.) c) CIT VS Union Tyres (1999) 107 Taxmann 447 (Delhi High Court) d) Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria 66 ITR 443 (SC) e) Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry 44 ITR 891 (SC) 17.6 The Ld DR has drawn attention of the Bench to the Judgement of Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Nirbheram Daluram 224 ITR 610 to argue that the powers of CIT(A) are wide and CIT(A) can make enhancement on new source of income. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that the case laws relied upon by him have considered and distingui…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Smt. Shashi Mehta, New Delhi

ITA 271/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2018-19 A.Y. 2019-20

…VS Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-63(1), New Delhi [2019] 110 taxmann.com 119 (Delhi - Trib.) c) CIT VS Union Tyres (1999) 107 Taxmann 447 (Delhi High Court) d) Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria 66 ITR 443 (SC) e) Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry 44 ITR 891 (SC) 17.6 The Ld DR has drawn attention of the Bench to the Judgement of Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Nirbheram Daluram 224 ITR 610 to argue that the powers of CIT(A) are wide and CIT(A) can make enhancement on new source of income. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that the case laws relied upon by him have considered and distingui…

Madhucon Projects Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 762/HYD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri B. Balakrishna, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 153A

…no show-cause notice was given by the learned CIT (A) as required u/s 251(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry reported in (1962) 44 ITR 891 (S.C) as well as the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Saheli Synthetics (P) Ltd reported in 302 ITR 126. Thus, the learned AR has submitted that the enhancement made by the learned CIT (A) is not sustainable and liable to be deleted. 11. On the other hand, the learned DR has submitted that the learned CIT (A) has pointed…

Madhucon Projects Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 761/HYD/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri B. Balakrishna, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 153A

…no show-cause notice was given by the learned CIT (A) as required u/s 251(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry reported in (1962) 44 ITR 891 (S.C) as well as the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Saheli Synthetics (P) Ltd reported in 302 ITR 126. Thus, the learned AR has submitted that the enhancement made by the learned CIT (A) is not sustainable and liable to be deleted. 11. On the other hand, the learned DR has submitted that the learned CIT (A) has pointed…