CIT v. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products

231 ITR 53Supreme Court of India1998#602 most cited

What is CIT v. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products authority for?

The term 'record' under Section 263(1) of the Income Tax Act includes all material available to the Commissioner at the time of his examination, not merely the records that were available to the Assessing Officer when the original assessment order was passed.

163

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,421 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products · Section 263 · meaning of record · revisional power · material available to Commissioner · erroneous and prejudicial · inadequate enquiry · 231 ITR 53 · scope of 263(1) · examination by CIT

Sections most often in play

Section 263Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 145A(b)

Issues it is cited on

inadequate enquirylack of enquirydoctrine of mergersection 263(1)malabar industrialrevision u/s 263non application of minderroneous and prejudicialmercantile system of accountingsection 263section 26income-tax officer

Judgments citing CIT v. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products

Smt Madhu Chhanda Sirkar, Kolkata vs. CIT-Xvii, Kolkata

In the result ITA No.1704/Kol/2011 and ITA No

ITA 1084/KOL/2014[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Sept 2018AY 2007-2008

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Smt. Madhumita Roy, Jm ] Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Chowdhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.Hangsing, CIT(DR)&

…cludes not only the record as it stands at the time when the order in question was passed by the Assessing Officer but also the record as it stands at the time of examination by the CIT [see CIT v. Shree Manjunathesware Packing & Products Camphor Works [1998] 231 ITR 53 / 98 Taxman 1 (SC)]. Nothing bars/prohibits the CIT from collecting and relying upon new/additional material/evidence to show and state that the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous.”(Emphasis ours) 32. In that view of the matter we do not appreciate the stand taken by the ld. CIT in setting aside the order of the ld.AO for the reasons men…

Smt. Madhu Chhanda Sirkar, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 50, Kolkata

In the result ITA No.1704/Kol/2011 and ITA No

ITA 1704/KOL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Smt. Madhumita Roy, Jm ] Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Chowdhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.Hangsing, CIT(DR)&

…cludes not only the record as it stands at the time when the order in question was passed by the Assessing Officer but also the record as it stands at the time of examination by the CIT [see CIT v. Shree Manjunathesware Packing & Products Camphor Works [1998] 231 ITR 53 / 98 Taxman 1 (SC)]. Nothing bars/prohibits the CIT from collecting and relying upon new/additional material/evidence to show and state that the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous.”(Emphasis ours) 32. In that view of the matter we do not appreciate the stand taken by the ld. CIT in setting aside the order of the ld.AO for the reasons men…

DCIT, Circle - 50, Kolkata vs. Smt. Madhu Chanda Sirkar, Kolkata

In the result ITA No.1704/Kol/2011 and ITA No

ITA 1567/KOL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Smt. Madhumita Roy, Jm ] Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Chowdhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.Hangsing, CIT(DR)&

…cludes not only the record as it stands at the time when the order in question was passed by the Assessing Officer but also the record as it stands at the time of examination by the CIT [see CIT v. Shree Manjunathesware Packing & Products Camphor Works [1998] 231 ITR 53 / 98 Taxman 1 (SC)]. Nothing bars/prohibits the CIT from collecting and relying upon new/additional material/evidence to show and state that the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous.”(Emphasis ours) 32. In that view of the matter we do not appreciate the stand taken by the ld. CIT in setting aside the order of the ld.AO for the reasons men…

M/S. Megh Promoters Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Circle - 13(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 355/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Sept 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Madhumita Roy) Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Megh Promoters Pvt. Ltd.............................…………………………………...…….………...........Appellant Megh Synergy No. 45, Halls Road Kilpauk Chennai – 600 010 Tamilnadu [Pan: Aakcs 3346 J] Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-13(1), Kolkata....…..…….……..Respondent

Section 263

…cludes not only the record as it stands at the time when the order in question was passed by the Assessing Officer but also the record as it stands at the time of examination by the CIT [see CIT v. Shree Manjunathesware Packing & Products Camphor Works [1998] 231 ITR 53 / 98 Taxman 1 (SC)]. Nothing bars/prohibits the CIT from collecting and relying upon new/additional material/evidence to show and state that the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous.”(Emphasis ours) The Kolkata ‘D’ Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Electric Investment & Enterprises (Supra), at para 7 held as follows:- “7. Heard bot…

Mr. Rajeev Agarwal, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, Rohtak

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1716/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamblevs Rajeev Agarwal, Pr. Cit W-7, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Greater Kailash, Part-1, Opp. Mansarover Park, New Delhi. Rohtak. Pan No. Ahbpa5683K Appellant Respondent Appellant/ Assessee By Sh. Sameer Kapoor, Ca Respondent/ Revenue By Smt. Paramita Tripathi, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 12.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement .06.2018 Order Per Suchitra Kamble, Jm

Section 143(3)Section 263

…(Calcutta)/[2016] 386 ITR 162 (Calcutta)/[2016] 287 CTR 512]; 4) Rajmandir Estates (P) Ltd. vs. PCIT (2017) 77 taxmann.com 285 (SC)/[2017] 245 Taxman 127 (SC); 6 5) Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products & Camphor Works vs. CIT [1998] 96 Taxman 1 (SC)/[1998] 231 ITR 53 (SC)/[1997] 143 CTR 406 (SC) 7. We have heard both the parties and perused all the records. In the present case, it is pertinent to note that the assessee admitted that there is clerical mistake in the details filed regarding sale and purchase of the gold during the month of March which was overlooked by the Assessing Officer. The assessee had pur…

M/S Motia Township Pvt. Ltd., Zirakpur vs. DCIT, Patiala

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 456/CHANDI/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptam/S Motia Township Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The D.C.I.T., Shop No.102, Royale Estate, Central Circle, Chandigarh Delhi Highway, Patiala. Zirakpur. Pan: Aaecm8113D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Abrol, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…al Housing & Construction Ltd. - 51 taxmann.com 376 (SC) c. CIT, Karnal vs Rajesh Mahajan - 16 taxmann.com 85 (P&H) d. Vodafone South Ltd vs CIT (TDS) - 61 taxmann.com 108 (ITAT, Chandigarh) e. CIT vs Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products And Camphor Works - 231 ITR 53 (SC). 4. The above submission may please be taken on record. . 15. We have heard the contentions of both the parties. The issue in challenge before us in the exercise of power by the CIT u/s 263 of the Act, setting aside the order of the AO holding it to be erroneous so as to cause prejudice to the revenue. 16. It is trite law that for the exer…

M/S Panchnath Enterprise, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Pr. Commr. of Income Tax-1, Rajkot-Gujarat

Appeals are allowed

ITA 139/RJT/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Feb 2018AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri M. J. Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Kumar, CIT. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 263

…[M/s. Panchnath Enterprise vs. Pr.CIT ] A.Y. 2060-07 to 2008-09 - 13 - when the order in question was passed by the Assessing Officer but also the record as it stands at the time of examination by the CIT [see CIT vs. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products, 231 ITR 53 (SC)]. Nothing bars/prohibits the CIT from collecting and relying upon new/additional material/evidence to show and state that the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous. 18. It is in this context that the Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC), had observed that the phrase „prejudi…

Damodar Valley Corporation, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-9, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 401/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 Damadar Valley V/S. Dcit, Circle-9, Corporation, Dvc Towers Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, (4Th Floor), Vip Chowringhee Square Road,Kolkata-54 Kolkata-69 [Pan No.Aabcd 0541 M] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, Fca अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Md. Usman Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 17-01-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 21-02-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Dispute The Order Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Kolkata Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 12.01.2017 Set Aside The Assessment Order Date30.03.2015 For Assessment Year 2012-13 With A Direction To Re-Do The Assessment In Respect Of Issue Therein. Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, Ld. Authorized Representative Appeared On Behalf Of Assessee & Md. Usman, Ld. Departmental Representative Appeared On Behalf Of Revenue. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds:- “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit Was Unjustified In Law In Holding The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Passed For The A.Y. 2012-13 To Be Erroneous In So Far As It Was Prejudicial To The Interest Of

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…nt passed by Assessing Officer and i.e. why revisionary powers have been given to the Commissioner and such power were held to be of wide amplitude by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v..Shree Manjunatheswar Packing Products & Camphor Works [1998] 231 ITR 53/96 Taxman 1. Therefore, normally when Assessing Officer has not made any enquiry on a particular issue, then such order in view of the above detailed discussion has to be construed as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and therefore, the impugned assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue as Assessin…

Ramnath Jhunjhunwala, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 40(1), Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 1019/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year:2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 263Section 40Section 44A

…t passed by Assessing Officer and i.e. why revisionary powers have been given to the Commissioner and such power were held to be of wide amplitude by jthe Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products & Camphor Works[1998] 231 ITR 53/96 Taxman 1. Therefore, normally when Assessing Officer has not made any enquiry on a particular issue, then such order in view of the above detailed discussion has to be construed as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and therefore, the impugned assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue as Assessin…

Surya Jyoti Software Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2158/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Shri Amit Shukla

For Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 263

…ar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs CIT [2000] 109 243 ITR 83 (SC). 3. Rajmandir Estates (P.) Ltd. Vs PCIT [2016] 386 ITR 162 4. Rajmandir Estates (P.) Ltd. Vs PCIT [2017] 245 Taxman 127 (SC) 5. Shree Maniunathesware Packing Products & Camphor Works Vs CIT [1998] 96 231 ITR 53 (SC). 16. Regarding challenging the validity of reopening under section 147 by the assessee, on the ground that the proceedings should have been initiated under section 153C, he submitted that the Pr. CIT has dealt with this issue at page 16 of his order and so far as the contention that information from the third party or material recovered from…

Reliance Money Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3259/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri B Puresh
Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 263Section 50

…from Rs.8,66,52,484 to Rs.80,25,356/- . The Pr. CIT also relied on the certain case laws to set aside the order of the AO: i) CIT V/s Infosys Techlologies Ltd (2012) 341 ITR 293(Kar); ii) CIT V/s Shree Manjunatheshware Packing Products and Camphor works (1998 231 ITR 53(SC) and iii) Tara Devi Agrawal V CIT (1973)88 ITR 323 (SC) Ultimately, the ld. Pr. CIT has held that the assessment made by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue on all the accounts for the reasons that the deductions were allowed without making necessary inquires. As per Pr. CIT, the AO collected the details from the…

M/S Mewat Grit Udyog, New Delhi vs. Pr, CIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1802/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, advocate&For Respondent: Smt.Sulekha Verma, CIT/DR
Section 143(3)Section 201(1)Section 263Section 40

…and detailed enquiry. Further reliance is placed on the decision reported in Malabar Industries Co Ltd vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC), RajmandirEstates (P) Ltd vs. PCIT 245 taxman 127 (SC), Sh. ManjunatheshwaraPacking Products and Camphor Works vs. CIT (1998) 231 ITR 53 (SC) and CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan 384 ITR 200. Ld. DR referred to the relation of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises vs. ACIT 99 ITR 375 and also the decisions of the Tribunal in Perfetti Van Melle India Private Limited in ITA 3046/del/2016, Ramesh Kumar in ITA No. 1982 /Del/ 2018 and CIT vs. Apollo tyres Ltd reported…

M/S Dhameja Mining, Sikkim vs. ITO, WD-2(4), Asansol

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 701/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Dec 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: : Shri M.Balaganesh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(2)Section 194Section 40Section 69A

…the addition by observing as under: 7. The effect of non admission of SLP is as under: a. Rejection of SLP does not mean that decision of HC has been approved.[CIT Vs Quality (Pat) 224 ITR 77,CIT Vs Shree Manjunatheswara Packing Products & Camphor Works (SC) 231 ITR 53,J.K Charitable Trust Vs WTO & Ors. (All) 222 ITR 523] b. Special Leave petition dismissed with speaking order is declaration of law by Supreme Court - After rejection of SLP, lower Courts can review its order - Once SLP is admitted, lower Courts have no jurisdiction to review the order [Kunhayammed & Ors. Vs State of Kerala & Anr. (SC) 245 ITR 360…

M/S Ilc Industries, Hospet vs. Pr. CIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 847/BANG/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao & Shri. S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. Zain Ahmed Khan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sunil Kumar Verma, CIT - DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 37(1)

…A O allowing the exports without any enquiry amounted to the assessment order being not only erroneous but also prejudicial to the Revenue. While doing so, the Pr. CIT relied on the ratios of Shree Manjunothesware Packing Products and Camphor Works [1998] 231 ITR 53 Supreme Court, CIT Vs Assam Tea House, 344 ITR 507 (P&H), Sadiq Sheikh (ITA Nos.170 & 172/PNJ/2014 and ITA Nos.171 & 173/PNJ2014 Asst.Years 2006-07 & 201041) the Hon'ble ITAT Panaji Bench . Thus, the Pr. CIT set aside the assessment order on this specific issue to the file of the A O. He held that the assessee can demonstrate before the A O t…

Uday Kumar Vaish, New Delhi vs. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5700/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Lalit Kumar, Jm Ita No. 5700/Del/2014 : Asstt. Years : 2009-10 Uday Kumar Vaish, Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, 52/79, Ramjas Road, Karol Bagh, Central-Ii, New Delhi-110005 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaipv1716G Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Kartar Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.03.2014 Of Ld. Cit, Central-Ii, New Delhi U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act).

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Somil Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Kartar Singh, CIT DR
Section 263

…h the CIT can rely includes not only the record as it stands at the time when the order in question was passed by the Assessing Officer but also the record as it stands at the time of examination by the CIT [see CIT vs. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products, 231 ITR 53 (SC)]. Nothing bars/prohibits the CIT from collecting and relying upon new/additional material/evidence to show and state that the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous. 18. It is in this context that the Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC), had observed that the phrase „prejudi…

Hewlett - Packard Global Soft Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 1211/BANG/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Oct 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri S.K.Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 144CSection 250Section 263Section 92C

…provisions of section 144C coming into force; Incorrect reliance on the decisions 10. The Learned CIT(A) erred in law and in fact in placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products and Comphor Works (231 ITR 53) and the decision of the Kolkata ITAT in the case of ITO vs Uma Kant Newatia (97 ITD 414) in the present case. Other grounds on the process in respect of the Revised Assessment 11. The learned CIT (A) erred in upholding the Revised Assessment, containing the TP and other adjustments that formed a part of the Original Assessment and did not survive…

M/S Spml Infra Ltd., Kolkata vs. The PCIT, Kolkata-3, Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 134/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jul 2016AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 134/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sajjan Kumar Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 80

…ich is part of the record before CIT when the jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act is being invoked by the CIT. We are supported in the above conclusions by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products & Camphor Works 231 ITR 53 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court after examining the legislative amendment to s. 263 including the amendment made with retrospective effect for amplifying the scope of the term ‘record’, did not accept the narrow interpretation of the word ‘record’ which had appealed to the Calcutta High Court in the case of Ganga Properties vs. ITO 118 ITR…

M/S. Synergy Waste Management Pvt. Ltd., Hisar vs. ACIT, Hisar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2560/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2009-10 Synergy Waste Management Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, 168, Delhi Rod, Sector 27-28, Hisar. Hisar. (Pan: Aaics9088H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ved Jain, Adv. Shri Ashish Kumar, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Pankaj Vidharthi, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.03.2016 Date Of Pronouncement:

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Vidharthi, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 80I

…h the CIT can rely includes not only the record as it stands at the time when the order in question was passed by the Assessing Officer but also the record as it stands at the time of examination by the CIT [see CIT vs. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products, 231 ITR 53 (SC)]. Nothing bars/prohibits the CIT from collecting and relying upon new/additional material/evidence to show and state that the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous. I.T.A. 2560/D/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 18. It is in this context that the Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2000) 243 ITR…

Lakshya Seth, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and impugned notice

ITA 218/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Oct 2015AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Shri Suresh K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gajanand Meena, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44ASection 69A

…h the CIT can rely includes not only the record as it stands at the time when the order in question was passed by the Assessing Officer but also the record as it stands at the time of examination by the CIT [see CIT vs. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products, 231 ITR 53 (SC)]. Nothing bars/prohibits the CIT from collecting and relying upon new/additional material/evidence to show and state that the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous. 14 AY: 2011-12 18. It is in this context that the Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC), had observed that the…

A.Mohamed Ayub Alias Salim, Ootacamund vs. ACIT, Ooty

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1464/CHNY/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri V. Durga Raoआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.1463 & 1464/Mds/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-2010)

For Appellant: Shri. J. Murali, C.A ""For Respondent: Shri. A.V. Sreekanth, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 254Section 254(2)

…adopted while considering the scope and effect of section 263 of the Act and the meaning to be assigned to the word 'record' used in that provision, in the case of CIT Vs. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products & Camphor Works (1997) 143 CTR (SC) 406 : (1998) 231 ITR 53 (SC). The object with which power is conferred by section 154 is as stated in the marginal heading 'rectification of mistake'. The principal condition for exercising the power under section 154 of the Act is the existence of a mistake in the record. The mistake is not to be a mistake which requires in-depth probing to discover, but is a mistake wh…