How many judgments cite Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT?

543 judgments on BharatTax cite Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT (99 ITR 375), spanning 2009 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 263, Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 142(1), Section 144B, Section 148.

Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT

99 ITR 375High Court1975#115 most cited

What is Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT authority for?

An assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue if the Assessing Officer fails to make proper inquiries before accepting the assessee's statements or claims. The Commissioner can revise such an order under Section 263 without conducting further inquiries himself.

543

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT · 99 ITR 375 · Section 263 revision · assessment order erroneous and prejudicial · inadequate inquiry by AO · failure to inquire · Commissioner's power under Section 263 · revision for lack of inquiry · AO accepting assessee statements without inquiry · Delhi High Court 1975 · prejudicial to interest of revenue · section 143(3)

Sections most often in play

Section 263 Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 142(1)Section 144B Section 148 Section 143(2)Section 115BBE

Issues it is cited on

prejudicial to interest of revenue malabar industrial section 263(1)inadequate enquiry lack of enquiry revision u/s 263 assessment order erroneous erroneous and prejudicial section 263 section 119 section 26 principal commissioner of income-tax

Judgments citing Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT

Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Holdings Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jaipur

In the result both the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 192/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Birla (C.A.) &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a

Section 143(3)Section 263

…h Court. The Special Leave Petition are dismissed.” Reliance has been placed on the following judicial pronouncements in this regard: Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Skill Development Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur 1. In the case of M/s Gee Vee Enterprises 99 ITR 375 (Delhi High Court)[1995]. It was held that the Assessing Officer (AO) is not only an adjudicator but also an investigator, and failure of the AO to conduct the required inquiring and accepting the statement of the assessee without due verification renders the order erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Absence of proper…

Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Food Industries Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Incometax-1, Jaipur

ITA 191/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Us On The Following Grounds In This Appeal;

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Birla (C.A.) &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. While holding that view the ld. Pr. CIT has relied the judgment of the apex court in the case of Deniel Merchants P. Ltd. & others Vs. ITO. He also relied upon the decision of M/s. Gee Vee Enterprise 99 ITR 375 Delhi High Court, Jagdish Kumar Gulati Vs. CIT 269 ITR 71 (Allahabad HC), Duggal & co. 220 ITR 456(Delhi), K. A. Ramaswami Cehttiar Vs. CIT 220 ITR 657 (Mad). 8. On merits the ld. AR of the assessee submitted before us that his detailed submission which is extracted here in below : “Facts: The assessee, a Private Limited Company. The main obj…

Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Skill Development Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Jaipur

In the result both the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 190/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Birla (C.A.) &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a

Section 143(3)Section 263

Anup Enterprises, Mumbai vs. The Principal CIT-19, Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 2 & 3 raised by the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 1641/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalanup Enterprises, 41, 4Th Floor, Neelkamal, Pedder Road, Mumbai-400026 Pan: Aaafa5067D ...... Appellant Vs. The Pr.Cit-19, Room No. 228, 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Tardeo, Mumbai-400007 ..... Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Smt. Shailja Rai, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 26/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/08/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-19, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As (‘Ld. Pr.Cit) Dated 22.03.2021 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 263Section 263(1)Section 3

…which is apparently in order but calls for further inquiry. The word "erroneous in this section includes cases where there has been a failure to make 8 ITA No. 1641/Mum/2011-Anup Enterprises the necessary inquiries [Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT, (1975) 99 ITR 375, 386 (Del)). It is incumbent on the Officer to investigate the facts stated in the return, when circumstances would make such an enquiry prudent and the word 'erroneous in section 263 includes the failure to make such an inquiry. The order becomes erroneous because such an inquiry has not been made and not because there is anything wrong with the…

Sampkhand Group Seva Sahakari Sangh Limited, Samphkand vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

ITA 366/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Sampkhand Group Seva Sahakari Sangh Ltd., The Principal No. 104, Sahakari Commissioner Of Sangh, Kumta Road, Income Tax, Janmane, Hubli. Vs. Samphkand – 581 315. Pan: Aanas3902K Appellant Respondent : Shri S.V. Ravishankar, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By Dr-1 Date Of Hearing : 11-08-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23-08-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 29/03/2022 U/S. 263 Passed By The Ld.Pr.Cit, Hubli Relating To Assessment Year 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax Hubli, Passed Under Section 263 Of The Act In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Natural Justice, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case.

For Respondent: Shri S.V. Ravishankar

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 801Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 8o

…following judicial decisions: 1. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) 2. Daniel Merchants P. Ltd. 2017- TIOL-455-SC-IT 3. Rajmandir Estates P Ltd. (2017) 245 Taxman 127 (SC) 4. Ashok Logani (2012) 347 ITR 22 (Delhi) 5. Gee Vee Enterprises (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Delhi) 6. Vedanta Ltd. (2021) 279 Taxman 358 (Born) 7. V. K. Bharathi (2019) 102 taxmann.com 255 (Kar) 8. Rajalakshmi Mills Ltd. v. ITO (2009) 121 ITD 343 (Chennai)(SB) 9. Lokesh M. (2021) 187 ITD 342 (Bang) 21. In this case, the assessee has not given any information regarding filing of appeal. No appellate order has been received. As per inform…

Terrier Security Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bangalore

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

ITA 347/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80J

…ore, we answer the question posed for our answer in the negative and against the assessee. Both appeals are allowed. Parties to bear their respective cost.” 14. We also notice that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises v .ACIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Del) has held as under – “The reason is obvious. The position and function of the Income-tax Officer is very different from that of a civil court. The statements made in a pleading proved by the minimum amount of evidence may be accepted by a civil court in the absence of any rebuttal. The civil court is neutral. It simply gives decision on the…

Terrier Security Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bangalore

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

ITA 346/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80J

Asha Devi, Bangalore vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore-2, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 371/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Deva Rathna Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…y account” was not questioned by the AO by calling for ledger accounts etc., nor has the assessee submitted any details in this regard during the assessment proceedings. 9. We notice that the Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises v .ACIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Del) has held as under:- “In Tara Devi Aggarwal v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC) also the Income-tax Officer, Howrah, while remarking that the source of income of the assessee was income from speculation and interest on investments stated that neither the assessee was able to produce the details and vouchers of the speculativ…

Scholar'S Education Trust of India, 602-A, Trimurty Dave Apartment, Jai Singh Highway Marg, Bani Park, Jaipur vs. CIT Exemption, Jaipur

ITA 129/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: The Cit(A), The Power Exercised By Him U/S 263 For Disallowing The Donation Paid To Other Society Would Not Fall In The Ambit Of Section 263. 3. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Finding Given By Ld. Cit That Once Exemption U/S 11 Is Withdrawn, Not Disallowing The Scholar’S Education Trust Of India Vs. Cit(E)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Manoj Mehar (CIT) a

Section 11Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 244ASection 263

…also an investigator and he cannot remain passive in the face of a return which is apparently in order but calls for further inquiry but, as observed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT &Ors. 1975 CTR (Del) 61 : (1995) 99 ITR 375 (Del) , "it is his duty to ascertain the truth of the facts stated in the return when the circumstances of the case are such as to provoke an inquiry. (Emphasis, by underlining, italicised in print, supplied by us). It is, therefore, obvious that when the circumstances are not such as to provoke an inquiry, he need not put every proposition to the…

Neelam Medatwal, Jaipur vs. Pcti-1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 62/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Itat & The Delay Occurred May Kindly Be Condoned.

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A.) &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54F

…ion, it is held that, the order passed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the act on 18.12.2018 for A.Y. 2016-17 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. I place reliance on the following judicial pronouncements: 1. In the case of M/s Gee Vee Enterprises 99 ITR 375 ( Delhi High Court 0(1995). It was held that the Assessing Officer (AO) is not only an adjudicator but also in investigator, and failure of the AO to conduct the required inquiring and accepting the statement of the assessee without due verification renders the order erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Absence of prop…

Sun Stone Ingineering Induries P.Ltd., Jaipur vs. Pcti-2, Jaipur

The appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 50/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Avdhesh Kumar (CIT) a

Section 143(3)Section 253(3)Section 263

…Limited vs. CIT 243 ITR. • TTK LIG Ltd. vs. ACIT(Mad) 51 DTR 228. • ARvee International vs. Addl. CIT (ITAT, Mum) 101 ITD 495. • CIT vs. Nagesh Knitwears Pvt. Ltd. 345 ITR 135 (Delhi H.C.). • Gee Vee Enterprises v. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax (1975) 99 ITR 375. • CIT vs. Raisons Industries Ltd. 288 ITR 322 (SC). • Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 490 (Mad H.C.). 7. The learned counsel for the assessee has submitted before us that the revisionary powers u/s 263 of the Act could be exercised within two years from 5 Sun Stone Engineering Industries P. Ltd. the end of the financial year in whic…

Sandeep Hooda, New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT - 7, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 30

ITA 397/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharmasandeep Hooda, Vs. Pr. Cit-7, C/O. Rra Taxindia, D-28, South New Delhi Extension, Part-I, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aacph5453J

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 27Section 48Section 50Section 500(1)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 50c(2)

…t aspect that cannot be a ground for invoking powers u/s 263. Clear distinction between inadequate inquiry and lack of inquiry has been examined by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Gee Vee Enterprises v. Additional Commission of Income-Tax, Delhi-1, (1975) 99 ITR 375, where Hon’ble High Court has observed as under:- "The reason is obvious. The position and function of the Income-tax Officer is very different from that of a civil court. The statements made in a pleading proved by the minimum amount of evidence may be accepted by a civil court in the absence of any rebuttal. 'The civil court is neutral. It simp…

M/S Salarpuria Properties Pvt Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT, Central -2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 130/KOL/2021[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata03 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 80I

…egard. 9. Apart from the above principles, we deem it appropriate to make reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sun Beam Auto reported in 227 CTR 113 and Gee Vee Enterprises Ltd vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax (99 ITR 375). In the case of Sun Beam Auto, the Hon'ble High Court has pointed out a distinction between lack of inquiry and inadequate inquiry. If there is a lack of enquiry, then the assessment order can be branded as erroneous. The following observations of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court are worth to note: “12. We have considered the rival submissions of th…

Mahalaxmi Kundan Meena Diamond Jewellers P Ltd, Jaipur vs. Pr. CIT-1, Jaipur

ITA 119/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Avdesh Kumar (CIT)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…ced on record without their accompanying schedules or accounting notes. The same have now been submitted which require verification. 12. Reliance has been placed on the following judicial pronouncements in this regard:- In the case of M/s Gee Vee Enterprises 99 ITR 375 (Delhi High Court) [1995]. It was held that the Assessing Officer (AO) is not only an adjudicator but also an investigator, and failure of the AO to conduct the required inquiring and accepting the statement of the assessee without due verification enders the order erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Absence of proper…

Saurabh Singhai L/H Late Shri Mahendra Kumar Jain, Sagar vs. Income Tax Officer-3 Sagar, Sagar

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5/JAB/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur29 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble & Sh. Manomohan Das, Hon‟Ble

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148(1)Section 263

…self indicative of non-application of mind. Even as the same stands since statutorily provided vide Explanation 2(a) to sec. 263 w.e.f. 01/6/2015, it represents the well-settled law, for which reference may be made to Gee Vee Enterprises v. CIT (Addl.) [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Del), rendered on a review of judicial precedents, which are legion, including by the Apex Court and the Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court. It, nevertheless, becomes incumbent on the revisionary authority to, even as he does in the instant case, state the areas on which the AO is to direct his inquiry, and issue finding/s on in the set aside proc…

M/S. Coretech Ventures (Bangalore) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-2, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 746/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Coretech Ventures (Bangalore) Pvt. Ltd., The Principal Divyasree Chambers’ Commissioner Of Wing-A, O Shaugnessy Income Tax, Road, Bengaluru – 2, Langford Town, Vs. Bengaluru. Bangalore – 560 025. Pan: Aafcc2775E Appellant Respondent : Shri V. Chandrashekar, Assessee By Advocate : Shri V.S. Chakrapani, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30/03/2021 Passed By Ld.Pcit, Bangalore -2 U/S. 263 Of The Act For A.Y. 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of Revision Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru -2, Bengaluru, Under Section 263 Of The Act Dated 30/03/2021, In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case.

For Respondent: Shri V. Chandrashekar

Section 143Section 263Section 80Section 801A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/s. Coretech Ventures (Bangalore) Pvt. Ltd., The Principal Divyasree Chambers’ Commissioner of Wing-A, O Shaugnessy Income Tax, Road, Bengaluru – 2, Langford Town, Vs. Bengaluru. Bangalore – 560 025. PAN: AAFCC2775E APPELLANT RESPONDENT : Shri V. Chandrashekar, Assessee by Advocate : Shri V.S. Chakrapani, CIT- Revenue by DR Date of Hearing : 01-06-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 29-07-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal is…

Nekkanti Systems Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 637/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year : 2014-15 Nekkanti Systems Private Vs. Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward – 16(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaccn1440J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Deputy Vs. Nekkanti Systems Private Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 16(1), Pan : Aaccn1440J. Hyderabad. Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao. Revenue By: Sri Rajendra Kumar – Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.07.2022 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. These Are The Two Connected Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue For A.Y. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Against The Orders Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hyderabad Dt.29.03.2019 U/S 263 Of The Act & Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 4, Hyderabad Dt.23.01.2019 U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, Respectively.

For Appellant: Sri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Sri Rajendra Kumar – CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ct, if the twin conditions, firstly, order to be an erroneous and secondly, order prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, should be satisfied simultaneously. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of GEE VEE Enterprises Private Limited versus CIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Delhi) held that the CIT may consider the order of the Income Tax Officer as erroneous not only because it contains some apparent error of reasoning or of law or of fact on the face of it but also because it is a stereo-typed order which simply accepts what the assessee has stated in his return and fails to make inquiries which are called for in…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad vs. Nekkanti Systems Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 484/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Sri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Sri Rajendra Kumar – CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

Giraffe Developers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 9, Mumbai

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

ITA 2663/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalegiraffe Developers Pvt Vs. Pr. Cit – 9, Ltd Room No. 214, 2Nd 111, G Wing, Akruti Floor, Aayakar Commercial Complex, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Next To Akruti Centre Churchgate, Point, Central Road, Mumbai-400020. Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Pan/Gir No. : Aaccn2778D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Madhur Agrawal & Shri.Fenil Bhatt.Ar Respondent By : Shri.S.Anbuselvam.Dr Date Of Hearing 13.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri.Madhur Agrawal &For Respondent: Shri.S.Anbuselvam.DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271ASection 271BSection 40Section 40A(2)Section 92D

…ting Engineers vs. Addl. CIT in 20 taxmann.com 246 (Mum.) and by the Hon'ble M.P. High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kohinoor Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd. in 234 ITR 557 (M.P) as well as by the Delhi High Court in the case of GEE VEE Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT in 99 ITR 375 (Del.). The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has categorically held that the ITO being not only an adjudicator but also an investigator, he cannot remain passive in the face of a return which is apparently in order but calls for further enquiry in the facts and circumstances of the case and the word 'erroneous' in section 263 includes the failure to make…

Renu Poddar, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 188/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev SoganiFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 3Section 54Section 54F

…the requirement of the order being erroneous. In the same category fall orders passed without applying the principles of natural justice or without application of mind". 2. Delhi High Court in Gee Vee Enterprises v Additional Commissioner of Income-tax (1975) 99 ITR 375, has observed that "The Income-tax Officer is not only an adjudicator but also an investigator. He cannot remain passive in the fact of a return which is apparently in order but calls for further inquiry. It is his duty to ascertain the truth of the facts stated in the return when the circumstances of the case are such as to provoke an inquiry. Th…