DIT v. Jyoti Foundation

357 ITR 388High Court2013#429 most cited

What is DIT v. Jyoti Foundation authority for?

An assessment order cannot be deemed erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue under Section 263 if the Assessing Officer conducted an inquiry and applied their mind during the original assessment, as Explanation 2 to Section 263 does not permit unending inquiries by the revisional authority.

210

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

DIT v. Jyoti Foundation · Section 263 · revisional powers · erroneous and prejudicial · inadequate enquiry · lack of enquiry · non-application of mind · AO's inquiry · original assessment · Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. · Explanation 2 to Section 263 · Delhi High Court

Also reported as

38 Taxmann.com 180219 Taxmann 105

Sections most often in play

Section 263Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 132
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

prejudicial to interest of revenueinadequate enquirymalabar industrialsection 263(1)lack of enquiryrevision u/s 263non application of minderroneous and prejudicialsection 194asection 263section 26section 56(2)

Judgments citing DIT v. Jyoti Foundation

M/S. Ravi Foundation, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-17, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 884/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Ms. Arati AggarwalFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar (Sr. AR)
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 263(2)

…td., [1993] 71 Taxmann 585 (Bom.) 12. PCIT Vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd., DHC-dated 05.09.20 17 13. PCIT Vs. Medicare Ltd., DHC-dated 14.09.2017 14. ITO Vs. D.G.Housing Projects Ltd., [2012] 343 ITR 329 (Del.) 15. DIT Vs. Jyoti Foundation., [2013] 357 ITR 388 (Del.) 16. Shri Narayan Tatu Rane Vs. ITO, ITAT-New Delhi-dated 06.05.2016. Brahma Center Development P. Ltd. Vs. PCIT, ITAT-New Delhi dated 18.12.2019. 6 A.Y. 2010-11 7. The learned departmental representative submitted, before the revisionary authority the assessee had made no representation in support of its claim. She submitted, the issue of…

Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (Kiit), Bhubaneswar vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 45/CTK/2021[2106-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack08 Apr 2022AY 2106-17

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2016-17 Kalinga Institute Of Industrial Kalinga Institute Of Industrial Vs Cit (Exemptions), Cit (Exemptions), Technology (Kiit Technology (Kiit), Hyderabad Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No. No.Aaatk 3103 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agarwal S.K.Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Goutam, Manoj Kumar Goutam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 7 /3/ 20 / 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08/ /4/2022 O R D E R Per C.M.Garg G, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.K.AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Goutam
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 69A

…ion that the AO has not verified the relevant records, then, the Ld CIT (E) should have made enquiry himself to know the facts. For this proposition, he relied on the following decisions: P a g e 12 | 18 Assessment Year : 2016-17 i) DIT vs Jyoti Foundation, 357 ITR 388 (Del) ii) ITO vs DG Housing Projects ALtd., 343 ITR 329 (Del) iii) Pr. CIT vs Delhi Airport Metro Express (P) Ltd., 398 ITR 8 (Del) iv) Nanda Kishore Agarwalla vs Pr. CIT in ITA No.212/CTK/2017 14. On the first issue, after considering the rival submissions of both the sides and keeping in view the documentary evidences submitted by the assessee…

Raj Kishore Prusty, Kendrapara vs. Pr. CIT-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 46/CTK/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2016-17 Raj Kishore Prusty,At: Nuapatna, Raj Kishore Prusty,At: Nuapatna, Vs. Pr. Cit, Bhubaneswar Pr. Cit, Bhubaneswar-1 Po: Chandol, Dist: Kendrapara Po: Chandol, Dist: Kendrapara Pan/Gir No. No.Atdpp 8328 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.Parida, Ca D.Parida, Ca Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Goutam, Manoj Kumar Goutam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 8 /3/ 20 / 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/ /4/2022 O R D E R Per C.M.Garg G, Jm This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Pr. Cit-1, Bhubaneswar 1, Bhubaneswar U/S.263 Of The Act Dated 26.3.2021 U/S.263 Of The Act Dated 26.3.2021 For The Assessment Year .2016-17. 17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri D.Parida, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Goutam
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…ferred to various decisions in support of its case: P a g e 6 | 20 Assessment Year : 2016-17 “1. Nanda Kishore Agarwala vs. Pr. CIT in ITA No.212/CTK/2017 order dated 25.4.2018 2. ITO vs DG Housing Projects Ltd. 343 ITR 329 (Del) 3. DIT vs Jyoti Foundation, 357 ITR 388 (Del) 4. Pr. CIT vs Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt Ltd., 398 ITR 8 (Del) 5. ITAT Indore in the case of M/s. Radhiswari Developers Pvt Ltd., vs Pr. CIT in ITGA No.493/Ind/2019 order dated 20.7.2021 7. Ld A.R further submitted that the Pr. CIT while revising the assessment order has taken non-sustainable and non-plausible view in observing that t…

Kamal Kumar Agarwalla, Bhubaneswar vs. Principal CIT-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 58/CTK/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack04 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.58/Ctk/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2016-2017) Vs Pr.Cit, Bhubaneswar Kamal Kumar Agarwalla, 87, Kharavela Nagar, Unit-Iii, Bhubaneswar-751001 Pan No. : Aaopa 1367 L (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agarwalla/B.L.Agarwal, Ars राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Made Against The Order Dated 20.03.2021, Passed By The Pr.Cit, Bhubaneswar For The Assessment Year 2016-2017, On The Following Grounds :- 1. That, The Order Passed U/S 263 By The Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Bhubaneswar For Doing Of De Novo Assessment Is Not Sustainable In View Of The Fact That, The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Is Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. 2. That, Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Bhubaneswar Is Wrong In Directing The Ld. Assessing Officer To Make The De Novo Assessment In View Of The Fact That The Issued With Regard To The Capital Gain Was Examined By The Ld. Assessing Officer During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings By Issuing Of Notice U/S 142(1) Dated 15.12.2018 & Therefore The Revisional Order Passed U/S 263 Is Illegal & Liable To Be Quashed. 3. That, The Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Bhubaneswar Is Not Justified In Setting Aside The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) For The Purpose Of Verification Of Introduction Of Capital Which Had Been Verified By The Ld. Assessing Officer By Issuing

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agarwalla/B.L.Agarwal, ARsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…uiry made by the AO then he himself would have conducted the enquiry, instead of simply setting aside the order of AO by directing him to make assessment de novo. In this regard, ld. AR submitted following cases to be relied upon: i) DIT Vs. Jyoti Foundation, 357 ITR 388 (Del), wherein it is held as under :- 5. In the present case, inquiries were certainly conducted by the Assessing Officer. It is not a case of no inquiry. The order under Section 263 itself records that the Director felt that the inquiries were not sufficient and further inquiries or details should have been called. However, in such cases, as obs…

Gurbakshish Singh Batra, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT - 12, New Delhi

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

ITA 396/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2016-17 Gurbakshish Singh Batra, Vs Pr.Cit-12, E-1511, Wazir Nagr, New Delhi. Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi. Pan: Adspb2480J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R.S. Singhvi, Ca Revenue By : Shri Shashi Bhushan Sukla, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22Nd March, 2021 Of The Pcit, Delhi-12, Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 6Th October, 2016 Declaring The Total Income At Rs.44,86,160/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The It Act. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For ‘Limited Scrutiny’ Based On The Following Reasons:-

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shashi Bhushan Sukla, CIT, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 263Section 50C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : C : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2016-17 Gurbakshish Singh Batra, Vs Pr.CIT-12, E-1511, Wazir Nagr, New Delhi. Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi. PAN: ADSPB2480J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA Revenue by : Shri Shashi Bhushan Sukla, CIT, DR Date of Hearing : 15.02.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 31.03.2022 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 22nd March, 2021 of the PCIT, Delhi-12, passed u/s 263 of the…

Sh. Daljit Singh Bassi, Ranjit Nagar vs. Pr.CIT-1, Chandigarh

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 56/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 56/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Nangia, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 54BSection 54F

…he order of the Assessing officer were erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. ITA No. 56-Chd-2021 Sh. Daljit Singh Bassi, Ranjit Nagar 13 6.5 Similarly, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT Vs. Jyoti Foundation [2013] 357 ITR 388 (supra) held as under: “that inquiries were certainly conducted by the Assessing Officer. It was not a case of no inquiry. The order under section 263 itself recorded that the Director felt that the inquiries were not sufficient and further inquiries or details should have been called for. The inquiry should have been conducted by the Director h…

Tarun Jain, Bathinda vs. Pr.CIT(Central), Ludhiana

ITA 144/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sarabjeet Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

…of the Assessing officer were erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. ITA Nos. 140 to 143-Chd-2021 Sh. Sanjay Jain and Others, Ludhiana 28 9.3 Similarly, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT Vs. Jyoti Foundation [2013] 357 ITR 388 (supra) held as under: “that inquiries were certainly conducted by the Assessing Officer. It was not a case of no inquiry. The order under section 263 itself recorded that the Director felt that the inquiries were not sufficient and further inquiries or details should have been called for. The inquiry should have been conducted by the Director h…

M/S Royal Lifestyle Jewellers Pvt. Ltd.., Bathinda vs. Pr.CIT(Central), Ludhiana

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 143/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.143/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Royal Lifestyle Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., The Pcit, बनाम 18-A, 2Nd Floor, (Central) North Avenue Road, Ludhiana West Punjab Bagh, New Delhi

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sarabjeet Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…of the ITA No. 143-Chd-2021 Royal Lifestyle Jewellers Pvt Ltd, New Delhi 13 Assessing officer were erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 5.3 Similarly, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT Vs. Jyoti Foundation [2013] 357 ITR 388 (supra) held as under: “that inquiries were certainly conducted by the Assessing Officer. It was not a case of no inquiry. The order under section 263 itself recorded that the Director felt that the inquiries were not sufficient and further inquiries or details should have been called for. The inquiry should have been conducted by the Director h…

Rajni Jain, Bathinda vs. Pr.CIT(Central), Ludhiana

ITA 142/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sarabjeet Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

…of the Assessing officer were erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. ITA Nos. 140 to 143-Chd-2021 Sh. Sanjay Jain and Others, Ludhiana 28 9.3 Similarly, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT Vs. Jyoti Foundation [2013] 357 ITR 388 (supra) held as under: “that inquiries were certainly conducted by the Assessing Officer. It was not a case of no inquiry. The order under section 263 itself recorded that the Director felt that the inquiries were not sufficient and further inquiries or details should have been called for. The inquiry should have been conducted by the Director h…

Shri Sanjay Jain, Bathinda vs. Pr.CIT(Central), Ludhiana

ITA 140/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sarabjeet Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

…of the Assessing officer were erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. ITA Nos. 140 to 143-Chd-2021 Sh. Sanjay Jain and Others, Ludhiana 28 9.3 Similarly, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT Vs. Jyoti Foundation [2013] 357 ITR 388 (supra) held as under: “that inquiries were certainly conducted by the Assessing Officer. It was not a case of no inquiry. The order under section 263 itself recorded that the Director felt that the inquiries were not sufficient and further inquiries or details should have been called for. The inquiry should have been conducted by the Director h…

M/S Basti Wine Co. (English), Kanpur vs. Astt. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Kanpur

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

ITA 683/LKW/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow02 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 263

…I.T.A. No.683/Lkw/2018 Assessment Year:2014-15 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘A’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year:2014-15 M/s Basti Wine Co. (English), Vs. Pr. C.I.T.-1, 24/4, The Mall, Kanpur. Kanpur. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent by Shri Sunil Bajpai, CIT, D.R. Date of hearing 31/01/2022 Date of pronouncement 02/02/2022 O R D E R PER T. S. KAPOOR, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of learned Pr. CIT-1, Kanpur dated 11/10/2018 passed…

Concern India Foundation, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (Exem.) - 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1919/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2022AY 2015-16
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 263

…by merely directing him to re-verify the same details. In this regard, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Modicare Ltd., in ITA No.759 of 2017; ITO vs. DG Housing Projects Ltd., reported in 343 ITR 329; DIT vs. Jyothi Foundation reported in 357 ITR 388, had uniformly held that the exercise of jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act by the ld. PCIT cannot be outsourced by the ld. PCIT to the ld. AO. In either case, there is a huge difference between ‘lack of enquiry’ and ‘inadequate enquiry’. It is for the ld. AO to decide the extent of enquiry to be made as it is his satisfaction what is required under…

Humuza Consultants, Mumbai vs. The Pr. CIT-19, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 726/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Humuza Consultants Vs The Principal Commissioner Of 6Th Floor, Wokhardt Towers Income-Tax-19, Mumbai Bandra Kurla Complex Room No. 228, 2Nd Floor, Bandra East Matru Mandir Mumbai-400 01 Tardeo Road, Pan : Aahfh9240E Mumbai-400 007 Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Jd Mistry & Hiten Chande Respondent By Shri K.K. Mishra (Cit,Dr) Date Of Hearing 07-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement 07-01-2022 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi (Am):

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56Section 68

…tted that in the present case, there is no enquiry conducted by the learned PCIT and there is no finding that how the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous. f. He thereafter referred to the decision of Hon‘ble Delhi High Court in DIT vs Jyoti Foundation 357 ITR 388 (Del) wherein at para 5 where the Hon‘ble High Court held that it is mandatory for the PCIT to have conducted further enquiries or calling of the details before holding that the order is erroneous. It was, therefore, stated that in the present case there are no enquiries conducted by the learned PCIT before holding that the order is erroneous. 15…

Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt. Ltd, Jharsuguda vs. Principal CIT, Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 195/CTK/2019[204-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Dec 2021

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.193/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Rawats-Balaji(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aabar 9061 J Tan No. : Bbnr01647 C & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.194/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Sbepl-Gril(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aafas 2639 R Tan No. : Bbns04348 B & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.195/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt Ltd Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aagcs 4292 P Tan No. : Bbns00091 A (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By Three Different Assessees Against The Order Passed By The Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, U/S.263 Of The Act, All Dated 30.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2

For Appellant: Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 80I

…he Act, merely because he has different opinion in the matter. It is only in cases of 'tack of inquiry", that such a course of action would be open. " [Emphasis Supplied] • The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT v. Jyoti Foundation reported in [2013] 357 ITR 388 (Delhi) has held that: "4. Revisionary power under Section 263 of the Act is conferred by the Act on the Commissioner/Director of Income-tax when an order passed by the lower authority is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Orders which are passed without inquiry or investigation are treated as erroneous and prejudicial to t…

M/S- Sbep-Gril(Joint Venture), Jharsuguda vs. Principal CIT, Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 194/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.193/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Rawats-Balaji(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aabar 9061 J Tan No. : Bbnr01647 C & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.194/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Sbepl-Gril(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aafas 2639 R Tan No. : Bbns04348 B & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.195/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt Ltd Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aagcs 4292 P Tan No. : Bbns00091 A (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By Three Different Assessees Against The Order Passed By The Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, U/S.263 Of The Act, All Dated 30.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2

For Appellant: Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 80I

…he Act, merely because he has different opinion in the matter. It is only in cases of 'tack of inquiry", that such a course of action would be open. " [Emphasis Supplied] • The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT v. Jyoti Foundation reported in [2013] 357 ITR 388 (Delhi) has held that: "4. Revisionary power under Section 263 of the Act is conferred by the Act on the Commissioner/Director of Income-tax when an order passed by the lower authority is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Orders which are passed without inquiry or investigation are treated as erroneous and prejudicial to t…

M/S- Rawat Balaji (Joint Venture), Jharsuguda vs. Prilncipal, CIT, Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 193/CTK/2019[204-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Dec 2021

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.193/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Rawats-Balaji(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aabar 9061 J Tan No. : Bbnr01647 C & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.194/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Sbepl-Gril(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aafas 2639 R Tan No. : Bbns04348 B & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.195/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt Ltd Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aagcs 4292 P Tan No. : Bbns00091 A (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By Three Different Assessees Against The Order Passed By The Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, U/S.263 Of The Act, All Dated 30.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2

For Appellant: Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 80I

…he Act, merely because he has different opinion in the matter. It is only in cases of 'tack of inquiry", that such a course of action would be open. " [Emphasis Supplied] • The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT v. Jyoti Foundation reported in [2013] 357 ITR 388 (Delhi) has held that: "4. Revisionary power under Section 263 of the Act is conferred by the Act on the Commissioner/Director of Income-tax when an order passed by the lower authority is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Orders which are passed without inquiry or investigation are treated as erroneous and prejudicial to t…

Sangram Keshari Samantaray, Bhubaneswar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Bhubaneswar

ITA 12/CTK/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Oct 2021AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri D.Parida/C.Parida, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, कटक न्यायपीठ, कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JM & SHRI MANISH BORAD, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं./ITA No.12/CTK/2020 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Sangram Keshari Samantaray, Vs Pr.CIT-2, Bhubaneswar Plot No.38, Chintamaniswar Area, Bhubaneswar-751006 PAN No. : BBOPS 7915 N (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri D.Parida/C.Parida, AR िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR सुनवाई की तािीख / Date of Hearing : 20/10/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date of Pronouncement : 28/10/2021 आदेश /…

Royal Western India Turf Club, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -8, Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed, as indicated above

ITA 640/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri Rajesh Kumar ()

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 263(2)

…[1993] 71 Taxmann 585 (Bom.) 12. PCIT Vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd., DHC-dated 05.09.20 17 13. PCIT Vs. Medicare Ltd., DHC-dated 14.09.2017 14. ITO Vs. D.G.Housing Projects Ltd., [2012] 343 ITR 329 (Del.) 15. DIT Vs. Jyoti Foundation., [2013] 357 ITR 388 (Del.) 16. Shri Narayan Tatu Rane Vs. ITO, ITAT-New Delhi-dated 06.05.2016. Brahma Center Development P. Ltd. Vs. PCIT, ITAT-New Delhi- dated 18.12.2019. 7. The learned departmental representative submitted, before the revisionary authority the assessee had made no representation in support of its claim. She submitted, the issue of limitation wa…

Sukhdev Chayal, Bikaner vs. PCIT-1, Jodhpur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 26/JODH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur07 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year: 2016-17 Sukhdev Chayal, Vs. Pr.Cit-1, Near Ratan Sagar Well, Jodhpur. Bikaner. Pan No. Afjpc 9250 J

Section 143(3)Section 263

…s nothing but giving the AO second innings without establishing that the AO's order was erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Our findings in this regard find support in the following judgments: DIT vs Jyoti Foundation reported in 357 ITR 388 (Del) ITO vs DG Housing Projects Ltd reported in 343 ITR 329 CIT vs Ashish Rajpal reported in 320 ITR 674 (Del) CIT vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd reported in 332 ITR 167 (Del) CIT vs R.K. Construction Co. reported in 313 ITR 65 (Guj) For these reasons, we are of the considered view that the assessment order is not the result of non-application of mind…

M/S Basti Wine Co. (English), Kanpur vs. Astt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur

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

ITA 409/LKW/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2013-14 M/S Basti Wine Co. (English), Vs. Pr.C.I.T.-I, 24/4, The Mall, Kanpur. Kanpur. Pan:Aaaab4224A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44A

…I.T.A. No.409/Lkw/2018 Assessment Year:2013-14 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘B’, LUCKNOW [Through Virtual Court] BEFORE SHRI A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year:2013-14 M/s Basti Wine Co. (English), Vs. Pr.C.I.T.-I, 24/4, The Mall, Kanpur. Kanpur. PAN:AAAAB4224A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent by Shri Sheela Chopra, CIT, D.R. Date of hearing 01/09/2021 Date of pronouncement 28/09/2021 O R D E R PER T. S. KAPOOR, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of learned CIT pass…