CIT v. Valliammal (D.)

230 ITR 695High Court1998#7335 most cited

What is CIT v. Valliammal (D.) authority for?

An assessment order made after considering all facts and information cannot be revised under section 263 if the Commissioner believes more enquiries were needed. The Commissioner cannot re-examine accounts and substitute their judgment for that of the Assessing Officer.

15

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v Valliammal · section 263 · assessment order · erroneous and prejudicial · further enquiry · Commissioner's power · Assessing Officer · genuine transaction · verification of accounts

Issues it is cited on

erroneous and prejudicialsection 263section 26section 143section 14section 143(3)indiadocumentinterest

Judgments citing CIT v. Valliammal (D.)

Roop Kumar Chopra, Jaipur vs. PCIT Jaipur 1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 264/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Him By The Assessee In Compliance To The Notice Notices Issued To Him U/S 142(1) As Well As U/S 143(2) Of The Act By The Ao As Erroneous In So Far As It Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue For The Purpose Of Section 263 Of The Act & Consequently Setting Aside The Assessment Order Passed Dated 01-01-2021 To Be Made Afresh Made Is Most Arbitrarily, Unjust, Untenable & Liable To Be Vacated.’’

For Appellant: Shri Dheeraj Borad, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 142(2)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

…pellate Tribunal. It is submitted by the humble appellant that in the present case also the order was made by the A.O. after due verification of the details submitted. 7. The assessee further places reliance on the judgments in the case of CIT v/s. Valliammal 230 ITR 695 and DIT v/s Jyoti foundation 357 ITR 388 wherein the honorable court held that this section cannot be invoked by ignoring a genuine transactionor on the ground that verification of accounts was needed. The assesseealsoplaces reliance on the case of CIT v/s. Reliance Communication Limited 396 ITR 217. In this judgment it was held that if the AO ha…

Kaustubh Gupta, Meerut vs. Pr. CIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 1125/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2017-18 Kaustubh Gupta, 412/3, Versus Pr. C.I.T., Mangal Pandey Nagar, Ghaziabad. Meerut. Pan: Aabcs3651B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Sanjeev Sapra, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Waseem Arshad, Cit/Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.12.2023 Order Per Saktijit Dey, Vice-

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjeev Sapra, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Waseem Arshad, CIT/DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…Ltd., 343 ITR 329 (Del) (vi) Eicher Motor Ltd. vs. CIT, 125 taxmann.com 432 (ITAT Delhi) (vii). CIT vs. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd., 333 ITR 547 (Del). (viii). Meerut Roller flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 420 ITR 216 (All) (ix). CIT vs. Smt. D. Valliammal, 230 ITR 695 (Mad.) (x). CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bom) 6. Learned Departmental Representative submitted, in course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer has not at all enquired into the genuineness of purchase and sale of shares by the assessee. He submitted, subsequent investigations reveal that the assessee has purchased the sha…

Nimita Soni Prop. Swaranlata Traders, Bikaner vs. PCIT-1, Jodhpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 41/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: The Hearing.”

Section 143(3)Section 263

…of Income Tax cannot substitute his own views on the issue in exercise of the jurisdiction Nimita Soni Prop. Swaranlata Traders under Section 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions : 1. CIT v. Valliammal (D) 230 ITR 695 (Mad); 2. CIT v. Ratlam Coal Ash Co., 171 ITR 141 (MP); 3. Ashok Kumar Parasramka v. ACIT, 65 ITD 1 (Cal); 4. CIT v. Mehrotra Brothers, 270 ITR 157 (MP); 5. CIT v. Parameshwar Bohra, 267 ITR 698 (Raj.); 6. Paul Mathews and Sons v. CIT, 263 ITR 101 (Ker.); 7. CIT v. Arvind Jewellers, 259 ITR 502 (Guj); 8. CIT v. Hastings Properties, 253 ITR 124 (C…

M/S. Sanspareils Greenlands Pvt. Ltd., Meerut vs. ACIT, Meerut

ITA 695/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2008-09 Sanspareils Greenlands Cit, Pvt. Ltd. 28/32, Victoria Park Vs. Meerut Meerut Pan : Aaccs2788N Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, adv., Sh. Deepesh JainFor Respondent: Shri S.S.Rana, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

…., it is incumbent upon the (Sanspareils Greenlands Pvt. Ltd.) Commissioner not to exercise his suo moto revisional powers unless supported by adequate reasons for doing so. 5.7 The Hon’ble Madras High Court held in the case of CIT v Valliammal (D.) (1998) 230 ITR 695 (Mad) that assessment order made after considering all fact and information cannot be revised. Where the assessee had furnished the requisite information and the Assessing Officer had completed the assessment after considering and the facts but the commissioner revised the assessment order on the ground that the Assessing Officer had not made…

M/S Sanspareils Greenlands Pvt. Ltd., Meerut vs. CIT, Meerut

ITA 3225/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2008-09 Sanspareils Greenlands Cit, Pvt. Ltd. 28/32, Victoria Park Vs. Meerut Meerut Pan : Aaccs2788N Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, adv., Sh. Deepesh JainFor Respondent: Shri S.S.Rana, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

…., it is incumbent upon the (Sanspareils Greenlands Pvt. Ltd.) Commissioner not to exercise his suo moto revisional powers unless supported by adequate reasons for doing so. 5.7 The Hon’ble Madras High Court held in the case of CIT v Valliammal (D.) (1998) 230 ITR 695 (Mad) that assessment order made after considering all fact and information cannot be revised. Where the assessee had furnished the requisite information and the Assessing Officer had completed the assessment after considering and the facts but the commissioner revised the assessment order on the ground that the Assessing Officer had not made…

M/S. H.M. Agriexports Pvt. Ltd., Uttar Pradesh vs. Pr. CIT, Muzaffarnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2524/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2012-13 H.M. Agriexports Pvt. Ltd., Vs Pr. Cit, Hm Agriexports, Muzaffarnagar. Chilkana Road, Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh-247001 (Pan: Aacch5350D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : S/Shri Piyush K. Kamal, D.K. Gandhi, Adv. Respondent By : Smt. Meeta Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.09.2018 O R D E R

For Appellant: S/Shri Piyush K. Kamal, D.K. Gandhi, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Meeta Singh, CIT DR
Section 263

…s under Section 263 of the Act, merely because he has different opinion in the matter. It is only in cases of "lack of inquiry" that such a course of action would be open.” 8.4 The Hon’ble Madras High Court held in the case of CIT vs. Valliammal (D.) (1998) 230 ITR 695 (Mad) that assessment order made after considering all fact and information cannot be revised. Where the assessee had furnished the requisite information and the Assessing Officer had completed the assessment after considering and the facts but the commissioner revised the assessment order on the ground that the Assessing Officer had not made…

Shri Balaji Industries Complex, Badaun vs. CIT, Moradabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2775/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2009-10 Balaji Industries Complex, Cit, Ismailpur, Moradabad-244001 Vs Badaun. (Pan: Abefs3007Q) Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Mr. Abhinav Mehrotra, Adv. Department By: Smt. Meeta Singh C.I.T. Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.09.2018

For Appellant: Mr. Abhinav Mehrotra, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Meeta Singh C.I.T. DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 48Section 50C

…very disallowance, deduction, etc., it is incumbent upon the Commissioner not to exercise his suo moto revisionary powers unless supported by adequate reasons for doing so. 5.5 The Hon’ble Madras High Court held in the case of CIT v Valliammal (D.) (1998) 230 ITR 695 (Mad) that assessment order made after considering all fact and information cannot be revised. Where the assessee had furnished the requisite information and the Assessing Officer had completed the assessment after considering and the facts but the commissioner revised the assessment order on the ground that the Assessing Officer had not made…

M/S. Pratibha Sms Jv, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT, New Delhi

ITA 2735/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Marghav Shukla, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Aparna Karan,CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263Section 80I

…ssed it in as many terms as may be considered appropriate by his superior authority and even if the same is found to be inadequate the same cannot be a ground for revision. The Hon’ble Madras High Court held in the case of CIT v Valliammal (D.) reported in 230 ITR 695 (Mad) that assessment order made after considering all facts and information cannot be revised. Where the assessee had furnished the requisite information and the Assessing Officer had completed the assessment after considering the facts but the commissioner revised the assessment order on the ground that the Assessing Officer had not made pro…

M/S. Pratibha Sms Jv, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT, New Delhi

ITA 2347/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Marghav Shukla, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Aparna Karan,CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263Section 80I

…ssed it in as many terms as may be considered appropriate by his superior authority and even if the same is found to be inadequate the same cannot be a ground for revision. The Hon’ble Madras High Court held in the case of CIT v Valliammal (D.) reported in 230 ITR 695 (Mad) that assessment order made after considering all facts and information cannot be revised. Where the assessee had furnished the requisite information and the Assessing Officer had completed the assessment after considering the facts but the commissioner revised the assessment order on the ground that the Assessing Officer had not made pro…

Mr. Amit Kumar Aggarwal, Uttar Pradesh vs. ITO, Saharanpur

ITA 1068/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Aparna Karan, CIT(DR)
Section 142Section 143(3)Section 263

…essed it in as many terms as may be considered appropriate by his superior authority and even if the same is found to be inadequate the same cannot be a ground for revision. The Hon’ble Madras High Court held in the case of CIT v Valliammal (D.) reported in 230 ITR 695 (Mad) that assessment order made after considering all facts and information cannot be revised. Where the assessee had furnished the requisite 12 Amit Kumar Aggarwal vs. ITO information and the Assessing Officer had completed the assessment after considering the facts but the commissioner revised the assessment order on the ground that the…

Arabinda Roy, Hooghly vs. C.I.T Kolkata - Xx, Hooghly

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 1367/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2008-09

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…ustifiable and has to be cancelled.—CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 114 CTR (Bom) 81 : (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom), Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 159 CTR (SC) 1 : (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC), CIT vs. Smt. D. Valliammal (1997) 140 CTR (Mad) 433 : (1998) 230 ITR 695 (Mad) and Andhra Valley Power Supply Co. Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (1995) 53 TTJ (Bom) 647 : (1995) 55 ITD 24 (Bom) relied on; CIT vs. Kohinoor Tobacco Products (P) Ltd. (1998) 148 CTR (MP) 536 : (1998) 234 ITR 557 (MP) distinguished. AO, before making the assessment, having called for details and having discussed the matter with the representative of the…

Ashok Arora, New Delhi vs. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3024/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

Section 132Section 142Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 22(2)(e)Section 263

…every disallowance, deduction, etc., it is incumbent upon the Commissioner not to exercise his suo moto revisional powers unless supported by adequate reasons for doing so. 12. The Hon’ble Madras High Court held in the case of CIT v Valliammal (D.) (1998) 230 ITR 695 (Mad) that assessment order made after considering all fact and information cannot be revised. Where the assessee had furnished the requisite information and the Assessing Officer had completed the assessment after considering and the facts but the commissioner revised the assessment order on the ground that the Assessing Officer had not made…

Black Gold Holding P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT -5, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2484/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2016AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Ketan L. VajaniFor Respondent: Shri N.P.Singh
Section 143(3)Section 263

…, 203 ITR 108 (Bom); ii) CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd., 332 ITR 167 (Del.); iii) CIT Vs. Vikas Polymers, 341 ITR 537 (Del.); iv) CIT Vs. Leisure Wear Exports Ltd., 341 ITR 166(Del) v) CIT Vs. Kanda Rice Mills, 178 ITR 446 (P&H); and vi) CIT Vs. Smt. D Valliammal, 230 ITR 695 (Mad.) In view of the above submission, it was contended that order passed by the AO after making enquiry cannot be said to be erroneous insofar as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 6. On the other hand, it was argued by ld. CIT DR that no enquiry has been made by the AO, which is clear from the assessment order. As per ld. DR the assess…

M/S Fazal Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd., Meerut vs. CIT, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2837/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nandita Kanchan, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 36

…Vegetable Products Ltd Vs JCIT 303 ITR (AT) 278 (Pun e) Ahalya Trading Pvt Ltd Vs CIT 22 SOT 68( Mumbai) CIT Vs Munjal Castings 303 ITR 23 ( P&H) CIT V s RK Construction Co. 313 ITR 65( Guj) Reliance for this proposition is placed on:- CIT V s Valliammal D. 230 ITR 695 Madras Dhruv N Shah Vs DCIT 273 ITR (AT) 59 Bombay Various courts have held that under the revisionary powers, it is not open for the CIT to prescribe the nature and level of enquiries, if the AO has already considered them and taken a possible view. Reliance in this regard is place on : CIT Vs Arvind Jewellers 259 ITR 502 (Gujrat) Paul Mathew…

Elder It Solutions P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 4, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2461/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2015AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri A.V.SondeFor Respondent: Manjunatha R.Swamy
Section 143(3)Section 263

…ng enquiries, the Commissioner initiating proceedings u/s.263, setting aside assessment and directing the AO to re-examine the matter as to whether the expenditure was revenue or capital, is illegal. Hon‟ble Madras High Court in the case of Smt. D.Valliammal, 230 ITR 695 held that invocation of revisional jurisdiction by CIT on the ground that verification of account was needed after obtaining clarification from the assessee without recording ay finding that the ITO‟s order was erroneous and prejudicial and even after accepting the explanation of the assessee was invalid. 30. In the instant case, it was also expl…

CIT v. Valliammal (D.) (230 ITR 695) — Cited in 15 Judgments | BharatTax