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

Ravish Lakhmani, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT - 10, Kolkata

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

ITA 47/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…cords which are available at the time of examination by him and to take into consideration even those events which arose subsequent to the order of assessment. We now examine the following judgments on this issue:- DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. JYOTI FOUNDATION 357 ITR 388 (Delhi High Court) It was held that revisionary power u/s 263 is conferred 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 the interest of the Reve…

Rachit Lakhmani, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT - 10, Kolkata

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

ITA 46/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…cords which are available at the time of examination by him and to take into consideration even those events which arose subsequent to the order of assessment. We now examine the following judgments on this issue:- DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. JYOTI FOUNDATION 357 ITR 388 (Delhi High Court) It was held that revisionary power u/s 263 is conferred 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 the interest of the Reve…

Jaikishan Lakhmani, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT - 10, Kolkata

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

ITA 45/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…cords which are available at the time of examination by him and to take into consideration even those events which arose subsequent to the order of assessment. We now examine the following judgments on this issue:- DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. JYOTI FOUNDATION 357 ITR 388 (Delhi High Court) It was held that revisionary power u/s 263 is conferred 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 the interest of the Reve…

Reeta Lakhmani, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT - 10, Kolkata

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

ITA 44/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…cords which are available at the time of examination by him and to take into consideration even those events which arose subsequent to the order of assessment. We now examine the following judgments on this issue:- DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. JYOTI FOUNDATION 357 ITR 388 (Delhi High Court) It was held that revisionary power u/s 263 is conferred 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 the interest of the Reve…

Gopichand Lakhmani, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT - 10, Kolkata

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

ITA 43/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…cords which are available at the time of examination by him and to take into consideration even those events which arose subsequent to the order of assessment. We now examine the following judgments on this issue:- DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. JYOTI FOUNDATION 357 ITR 388 (Delhi High Court) It was held that revisionary power u/s 263 is conferred 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 the interest of the Reve…

Pravesh Kumar Lakhmani, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT - 10, Kolkata

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

ITA 42/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…cords which are available at the time of examination by him and to take into consideration even those events which arose subsequent to the order of assessment. We now examine the following judgments on this issue:- DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. JYOTI FOUNDATION 357 ITR 388 (Delhi High Court) It was held that revisionary power u/s 263 is conferred 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 the interest of the Reve…

Ritin Lakhmani, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT - 10, Kolkata

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

ITA 41/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…cords which are available at the time of examination by him and to take into consideration even those events which arose subsequent to the order of assessment. We now examine the following judgments on this issue:- DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. JYOTI FOUNDATION 357 ITR 388 (Delhi High Court) It was held that revisionary power u/s 263 is conferred 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 the interest of the Reve…

Kisan Steel Corporation, Ghaziabad vs. Pr. CIT, Ghaziabad

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5362/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleasstt. Year 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri JayMishra, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…42 (Raj.) 2. Salora International Ltd. (2005) 2 SOT 705 (Del.) 3. Super Casseete Industries Pvt. Ltd. 41 ITD 530 (Del) 4. Jhulelal Land Development Corporation 56 ITD 345 (BOM) 5. CIT vs. Krishna Capbox (P) Ltd. 372 ITR 310 (All.) 6. DIT vs. Jyoti Foundation 357 ITR 388 (Del) 7. Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy 100 ITD 173 (MUM) 14. Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the Ld. PCIT. He submitted that the AO has never examined the issue under provisions of section 40(b)(v) or 40(b)(iv) and he has 13 Kisan Steel Corporation vs Pr. CIT examined only the provision of section 40 (a)(ii)((b). Similarly…

Kaushal Kishore Bihani, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-45(1), Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 690/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ose events which arose subsequent to the order of assessment. We now examine the following judgments on this issue:- ITA No.609/Kol/2019 Assessment Year 2014-15 Kaushal Kishore Bihani Vs ITO Wd-45(1), Kol. Page 11 DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. JYOTI FOUNDATION 357 ITR 388 (Delhi High Court) it was held that revisionary power u/s 263 is conferred 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 the interest of the Reve…

Anindita Steels Ltd., Jharkhand vs. Pr.CIT-2, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2225/KOL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Sept 2020AY 2009-10
Section 143(3)Section 263

…y him and to take into consideration even those events which arose subsequent to the order of assessment. subsequent to the order of assessment. Now we examine the following judgements e the following judgements. :- DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. JYOTI FOUNDATION 357 ITR 388 (Delhi High Court ) DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. JYOTI FOUNDATION 357 ITR 388 (Delhi High Court ) DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. JYOTI FOUNDATION 357 ITR 388 (Delhi High Court ) It was held that revisionary power u/s 263 is conferred on the It was held that revisionary power u/s 263 is conferred on the It was held that revisionary power u/s 263 is conf…

Hindumal Balmukund Investment Co.Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax-1, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 562/PUN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Aug 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 562/Pun/2019 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Hindumal Balmukund Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. 2Nd Floor, Lohia Jain House, Bhandarkar Road, Pune-411 004 Pan : Aaach4226Q .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Pune. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri V.L. JainFor Respondent: Smt. Kesang V. Sherpa
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 4Section 80I

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “ए" न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE (Through Virtual Court) BEFORE SHRI R.S.SYAL, VP AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No. 562/PUN/2019 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Hindumal Balmukund Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. 2nd Floor, Lohia Jain House, Bhandarkar Road, Pune-411 004 PAN : AAACH4226Q .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/s. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Pune. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri V.L. Jain Revenue by : Smt. Kesang V. Sherpa सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 30.07.2020 घोषणा की तारीख / D…

Surekha Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. Principal CIT-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 207/CTK/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT,DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…voking the provisions of section 263 of the Act. Ld A.R. has placed reliance on the following judgments: P a g e 7 | 20 ITA No.2 07/CTK/201 8 Assessm ent Y ear : 20 13- 14 i) CIT vs Reita Biscuits Co.(P) Ltd., 309 ITR 154 (P&H) ii) DIT vs Jyoti Foundation, 357 ITR 388 (Del) iii) Nanda Kishore Agarwalla vs Pr. CIT in ITA No.212/CTK/2017 iv) Pr. CIT vs Kessoram Industries Ltd., 105 CCH 99 (kol) v) ITO vs DG Housing Projects , 343 ITR 329(Del) 9. Replying to above, ld CIT DR submitted that the Assessing Officer has not made any enquiry, verification or any other exercise to examine the justification and correctn…

Shuma Kalra, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT- 12, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee failed on all five grounds raised before us

ITA 4128/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishishuma Kalra, Vs. Pr. Cit-12, A-28, Ashok Vihar, Phase-1, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaipk8142R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Chaoudhary, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54F

…ld AO that is conclusively proved by the Pr. CIT. Thus, all these decisions do not come to the rescue of the assessee. c. The impugned case before us is not of „inadequate enquiry‟ but complete „lack of enquiry‟, therefore, reliance placed on 343 ITR 329 and 357 ITR 388 along with host of other decisions are also not helping the case of the assessee. d. Simply looking at the facts of the case, clear-cut conclusion can be drawn without any referring to the judicial precedents, the learned assessing officer did not do what he was mandated to do i.e. to look in to the large deduction under capital gain claimed by t…

Pushpa Devi Sonthalia, Kolkata vs. Principal CIT, Kolkata - 2, Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 958/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jun 2020AY 2013-14
Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 263

…ecords which are available at the time of examination by him and to take into consideration even those events which arose subsequent to the order of assessment. We now examine the following judgments on this issue:- DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. JYOTI FOUNDATION 357 ITR 388 (Delhi High Court) It was held that revisionary power u/s 263 is conferred 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 the interest of the Reve…

Dr. Vinod Bhandari, Indore vs. The DCIT Cir. 2(1), Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 57/IND/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

…bent on the Ld. PCIT to conduct such enquiry. Further in the case of PCIT v. Modicare Limited [ITA No. 759/2017] Hon'ble Delhi High Court has followed its decision in Income Tax Officer v. DG Housing Projects Limited [343 ITR 329], DIT v. Jyoti Foundation [357 ITR 388] and Ld. PCIT v. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. (supra) to hold that the exercise of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act cannot be outsourced by the PCIT to the AO and therefore, the PCIT cannot direct the AO to provide details of the facts on the basis of which the proceedings u/s 263 of the Act could have been initiated. 16. In the instan…

Dr. Vinod Bhandari, Indore vs. The ACIT Cir. 2(1), Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 66/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

…bent on the Ld. PCIT to conduct such enquiry. Further in the case of PCIT v. Modicare Limited [ITA No. 759/2017] Hon'ble Delhi High Court has followed its decision in Income Tax Officer v. DG Housing Projects Limited [343 ITR 329], DIT v. Jyoti Foundation [357 ITR 388] and Ld. PCIT v. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. (supra) to hold that the exercise of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act cannot be outsourced by the PCIT to the AO and therefore, the PCIT cannot direct the AO to provide details of the facts on the basis of which the proceedings u/s 263 of the Act could have been initiated. 16. In the instan…

M/S. Bhandari Hospital and Research Centre, Indore vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Indore

ITA 355/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Bhandari Hospital & Pr. Cit-(I) Research Centre, Gf-21 & Indore बनाम/ 22, Opp. Meghdoot Garden, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aadfb8151A

Section 131(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 263Section 35A

…ok of decisions) b. Madhusudhan Industries Ltd. v. CIT Ahd-II (ITA no. 853/Ahd/2013 placed on pg 13 to 22 of paper book of decisions) c. (2017) 30 ITJ 335 (MP) PCIT v. Narayan Balmukund Dubey (placed at page no. 23 to 35 of paper book of decisions) d. (2013) 357 ITR 388( Delhi) DIT v. Jyoti Foundation (placed at page no. 36 to 43 of paper book of decisions) e. (2004) 270 ITR 157 (MP) CIT v. Mahrotra Bros (placed at page no. 43 to 44 of paper book of decisions) f. (2010) 344 ITR 554 (Delhi) CIT v. International Travel House (placed at page no. 45 to 51 of paper book of decisions) g. (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Delhi) ITO…

Shri Vinod Bhandari, Indore vs. The Pr.CIT-1, Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 350/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

…bent on the Ld. PCIT to conduct such enquiry. Further in the case of PCIT v. Modicare Limited [ITA No. 759/2017] Hon'ble Delhi High Court has followed its decision in Income Tax Officer v. DG Housing Projects Limited [343 ITR 329], DIT v. Jyoti Foundation [357 ITR 388] and Ld. PCIT v. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. (supra) to hold that the exercise of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act cannot be outsourced by the PCIT to the AO and therefore, the PCIT cannot direct the AO to provide details of the facts on the basis of which the proceedings u/s 263 of the Act could have been initiated. 16. In the instan…

Skan Enterprise, Kolkata vs. Pr.C.I.T.-12, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 840/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2020AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 263

…take into consideration even those events which arose subsequent to the order of asse subsequent to the order of assessment. 9.2. Now we examine the following judgements Now we examine the following judgements. :- DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. JYOTI FOUNDATION 357 ITR 388 (Delhi High Court ) DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. JYOTI FOUNDATION 357 ITR 388 (Delhi High Court ) 14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Skan Enterprise It was held that revisionary power u/s 263 is conferred on the Commissioner/Director of It was held that revisionary power u/s 263 is conferred on the Commissioner/Director of It was held that revisionary p…

Shugan Chadra Kothari Trust, New Delhi vs. CIT(E), New Delhi

In the result Appeal of assessee allowed

ITA 4982/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, And Shri Satyajit Goel, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT-D.R
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 263

…himself to record findings that assessment order passed by the A.O. was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. In support of the contention, he has relied upon Judgments of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT vs., Jyoti Foundation 357 ITR 388 (Del.) and Pr. CIT vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited 398 ITR 8 (Del.) 7. On the other hand, Ld. D.R. relied upon the impugned order and submitted that assessee failed to explain source of the cash deposit in the Bank Account and filed comments of the A.O, in which it is highlighted that no enquiry have been made on these issues. Th…