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

Issues it is cited on

prejudicial to interest of revenuemalabar industrialsection 263(1)inadequate enquirylack of enquiryrevision u/s 263assessment order erroneouserroneous and prejudicialsection 263section 119section 26principal commissioner of income-tax

Judgments citing Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT

Al Champdany Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. Principal CIT - 1, Kolkata

Appeal is disposed off in above terms

ITA 843/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं/I.T.A No.843/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Ai Champdany Industries Ltd. Vs. Pcit-1, Kolkata. C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite- 213, 2Nd Floor, Kol-700069. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacca4860D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Vijay Shankar, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 24/02/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2013-14 Arises Against The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 1, Kolkata’S Order Dated 21.03.2018 Involving Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’). Heard Shri Subash Agarawal, Learned Authorized Representing Assessee & Shri Vijay Shankar, Cit-Dr Appearing At The Revenue’S Behest. 2. Relevant Facts Involved In The Instant Lis Is In Narrow Compass. Both The Learned Representatives Are Ad Idem During The Course Of Hearing That This Assessee A Company Manufacturing & Trading In Jute, Jute Blending, Flax Goods, Had Claimed To Have Been Deriving House Property Income From Various Asset(S) For The Past Very Many Assessment Years. They Invited Our Attention To The Assessing

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Shankar, CIT
Section 24Section 263

…h assessment on the same lines after quoting a catena of judicial precedents Malabar Industries Co. (2000) 243 ITR 83, Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84, Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323(SC), Gee Vee Enterprise vs. Addl. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 375, CIT vs. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products & Camphor Works [1998] 231 ITR 53. This leaves the assessee aggrieved. 4. We have heard Shri Agarwal and Mr. Sankar reiterating both the parties’ respective stands against and in support of the PCIT’s assumption of revision jurisdiction. The assessee’s case is that it had claimed the impugned deprec…

M/S Kamal Trading Company, Raichur vs. CIT, Kalaburagi

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

ITA 932/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri B.R.Baskaranm/S Kamal Trading Company, Plot No.10, Shop No.80, Rajendra Gunj, Raichur, Pan No.Aagfk0247F Appellant Vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Room No.102, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Sedam Rod, Kalaburagi Respondent Assessee By : Shri Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri .Muzaffar Hussain, Cit (Dr)

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri .Muzaffar Hussain, CIT (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 39(1)Section 43(3)Section 80Section 80ASection 80I

…consequence upon the Assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act, in the context of provisions of Sec.80AC of the Act. The Pr. CIT, therefore, placing decision on the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s GEE VEE Enterprises Vs Addl.CIT & Others 99 ITR 375(Del) came to the conclusion that failure to make 3 enquiry on an issue which calls for an enquiry renders the order of AO erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 6. One of the contention of the Assessee before the Pr.CIT was that the Hon’ble ITAT in the case of M/s Vanshree Builders & Developers (P)Ltd., Vs CIT in ITA No.536(B)/2011…

Kirtidevi S. Tejwani, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT- 22, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 3043/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2020AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

…icer remains passive on the facts which call for further inquiry, such an inertia on the part of the Assessing Officer also renders the order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. As held in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises Vs ACIT [(1975) 99 ITR 375 (Del)], “the Commissioner can regard the order as erroneous on the ground that in the circumstances of the case, the ITO should have made further inquiries before accepting the statements made by the assessee in his return”. Their lordships then set out the reasoning for this approach as follows:- The reason is obvious. The position and function…

Kritika Wires Ltd., Kolkata vs. Pr.C.I.T.-2, Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 709/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 263

…y on a relevant issue/point would render the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as decided in the following cases by various courts: (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) Ram Pyari Devi Saraogi (1973) 88 ITR 323 (SC) Tara Devi Aggarwal (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Del) Gee Vee Enterprises (1966) 220 ITR 657 (Mad) K.A. Ramaswami Cheettiar & Another (1966) 220 ITR 456 (Del) Duggal and Co. (1966) 220 ITR 167 (MP) Mahavar Traders (1995) 213 ITR 843 (Raj) Emery Stone Mfg. Co. (1992) 198 ITR 611 (Ker) Malabar Industrial Co. - Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC) - CIT vs.Max India Ltd. 268 ITR 128…

M/S Chengmari Tea Co. Ltd, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-4(1), Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 812/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

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

Section 115JSection 263Section 33A

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “"व” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “B” KOLKATA Before Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member and Shri S.S.Godara, Judicial Member Assessment Years: 2014-15 M/s Chengmari Tea Co. Ltd., ACIT, Circle-4(1), बनाम / S.B. Towres, 37, P-7, Chowringhee V/s. Shakespeare Sarani, Square, Kolata-700 069 Kolkata-700 017 [PAN No.AABCC 0672 Q] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Sunil Surana, FCA अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT-DR & ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT-DR 18.09.2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing…

M/S. Kalinga Mining Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Cuttack vs. Principal CIT, Cuttack Charge, Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 168/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack24 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Jesthi, ARFor Respondent: Shri J.K.Lenka, DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…d D.R. contended that the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue on the ground that the A.O. failed to make the enquiry which was warranted on the facts of the case. 7. In the case of Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT [99 ITR 375], the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held as under :- “It is not necessary for the Commissioner to make further inquiries before canceling the assessment order of the Income-tax Officer. The Commissioner can regard the order as erroneous on the ground that in the circumstances of the case the Income-tax Officer should have made further inquiries before…

Bengal Steel Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 11(3), Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 699/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 147Section 148Section 263

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “ए” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “A” KOLKATA Before Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member and Shri S.S.Godara, Judicial Member Assessment Year: 2012-13 Bengal Steel Industries Ltd., Income Tax Officer बनाम / 84/1A, Topsia Road, (S), Ward-11(3), Aayakar V/s. Kolkta-700 046 Bhawan, P-7, [PAN No.AAABCB 0969 P] Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700 096 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Goutam Banerjee, FCA अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri A.K. Nayak, CIT-DR ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 03-12-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 22-01-2020 घोषण…

Nipha Exports Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Principal CIT - 1, Kolkata

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

ITA 873/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…on the part of the AO who has merely accepted the assertions of the assessee, thereby making an assessment which is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 6, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of GEE VEE Enterprise vs. Addl. CIT reported in 99 ITR 375, 386 (Del) has held that the err may consider the order of the Assessing Officer to be erroneous not only if it contain some apparent error of reasoning or of law or of fact on the face of it but also because the Assessing Officer has I.T.A. No. 873/KOL/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Nipha Exports Private Limited failed to make enquiries whic…

M/S. Topgrain Management Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Principal CIT - 1, Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1278/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2013-14 M/S Top Grain V/S. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, 7Th Management Pvt Ltd., Beriwala Building, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Floor, 1/1 Meridith Street, Bhawan,P-7, Kolkata-700 072 Chowringhee Square, [Pan No.Aaact 9889 K] Kolkat-700 069 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 32

…a case of AO taking one possible view point as contended when facts of the matter are either clear or when assessee had not discharged its onus of substantiating its claim. 6 Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of GEE VEE Enterprise vs. Addl.CIT reported in 99 ITR 375, 386 (Del) has held that the CIT may consider the order of the Assessing Officer to be erroneous not only if it contain some apparent error of reasoning or of law or of fact on the face of it but also because the Assessing Officer has failed to make enquiries which are called for in the circumstances of the case and it is an order which simply acc…

M/S Metricstream Infotech(India) Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1688/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaranassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri H. Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 263Section 37Section 37(1)Section 43B

…e an enquiry on the issue which calls for an enquiry, that by itself will render the order of assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. It has been so held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. DCIT 99 ITR 375 & 1688/Bang/2018 Page 10 of 15 386(Delhi). The following passage from the said decision would explain clearly the legal position in this regard:- “(13) Shri G.C. Sharma argued that the orders passed by Income- tax authorities under sections 34 and 33B of the old Act corresponding to Section 147, and 263 of the new Act stood on the same footing…

Rissala Decor Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon vs. Pr. CIT, Gurgaon

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 2895/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri M.R. Sahu, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sulekha Vema, CIT(DR)
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…out the aforesaid first aspect of verification; it was a fit case for exercise of revisional powers of the Ld. Pr. CIT under Section 263 of I.T. Act. She further submitted that the judicial precedents in the cases of Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Delhi), Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 (SC) and Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC), referred to by the Ld. Pr. CIT in his impugned revisionary order dated 05.03.2019 passed under Section 263 of I.T. Act, were squarely applicable to the facts of the case. She further placed reliance on the written submissions f…

M/S. Aic Iron Industries Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT-1, Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1332/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.1332/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Aic Iron Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pcit-1, Kolkata 25, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, 4Th Floor, Kolkata – 700013. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccn0217F (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Sunil Surana, Fca Respondent By : Shri Radhey Shyam, Cit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 16/12/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/12/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Arises Against The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Kolkata Dated 12.03.2019 Involving Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. Relevant Facts Involved In The Instant Lis Are In A Very Narrow Compass. The Assessing Officer Has Framed His Regular Assessment In Issue Dated 19.12.16 Disallowing Administrative Expenditure Of Rs.46,420/- Under Rule 8D(2)(Iii) R.W. Section 14A Of The Act. The Pcit Assumed His Revision Jurisdiction Terming The Above Regular Assessment As Erroneous Causing Prejudice To Interest Of The Revenue Since There Were ‘Large Specific Domestic Transactions” & The Assessing Officer Had Completed His Assessment Without Making Any Reference To The Tpo To Determine Arm’S Length Price Thereof. He Quotes Cbdt Instruction No.3/2016 Dated 10.03.16 Regarding Guidelines For Implementation Of Transfer Pricing

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT
Section 14ASection 263Section 40

…e case at hand would make such assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue in the light of law laid down by the Apex court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. 6.Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of GEE VEE Enterprise vs. Addl.CIT reported in 99 ITR 375, 386 (Del) has held that the CIT may consider the order of the Assessing Officer to be erroneous not only if it contain some apparent error of reasoning or of law or of fact on the face of it but also because the Assessing Officer has failed to make enquiries which are called for in the circumstances of the case and it is an order which simply acc…

Vadasinor Pragati Samaj Co-Op.Credit Society Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -18, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2539/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanm/S Vadasinor Pragati Samaj Principal Commissioner Of Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd. Income Tax – 18 45/49, 1St Floor, Babu Genu Road, Vs. Mumbai. Kalbadevi, Mumbai-400002. Pan: Aaaav6905G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay S. Parikh (AR)For Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar (CIT-DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

…ignature of Assessing Officer on its acknowledgement. The ld. DR further submits that the assessment order is passed without examining the issue. The ld. PCIT in its order has clearly spelt out by referring the decision of Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT (99 ITR 375) that Assessing Officer is not only adjudicator but also an investigator, cannot remain passive in the face of a return which is apparently in order but calls for further inquiry in the facts and circumstances of the case, the word “erroneous” prescribed in section 263 includes the failure to make such an enquiry by Assessing Officer. The Assess…

Purshottam S.Panchal, Valsad vs. Pr.CIT, Valsad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 242/SRT/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.242/Srt/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 Purshottam S. Panchal, Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Raw House-5, Rameshwar Park, Income Tax, Valsad Parnera Pardi, Atul-Valsad Road, Valsad-396001 [Pan: Annpp 8604 K] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44ASection 68

…ut making such enquiries rendering the assessment to be erroneous and pre-judicial to the interest of the revenue. The PCIT has also supported his view by placing reliance on the decision on Hon’ble High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises v. ACIT (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Delhi), Malabar Industrial Company Ltd v. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC) and others as decision in the case of CIT v. Amitabh Bachchan 69 taxmann.com 170 (2016), as held that the AO has passed the reassessment Purshottam S. Panchal v. Pr. CIT, Valsad /ITA No.242/SRT/2019 /A.Y. 2009-10 Page 4 of 14 without making inquiries or verification on this issue whi…

M/S. Chandni Commercials Pvt. Ltd., (Adhirath Commercial Pvt. Ltd., Since Merged), Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 7(1), Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2678/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.2678/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Chandni Commercials Pvt. Vs. Ito, Ward-7(1), Kolkata Ltd.(Adhirath Commercial Pvt. Ltd. Since Merged) 9, Ezra Street, 1St Floor, Room No.23, Kol-1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaeccc2811Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kataruka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Nayak, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM & SHRI S. S. GODARA, JM आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.2678/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Chandni Commercials Pvt. Vs. ITO, Ward-7(1), Kolkata Ltd.(Adhirath Commercial Pvt. Ltd. since merged) 9, Ezra Street, 1st Floor, Room No.23, Kol-1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAECCC2811Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate Respondent by : Shri A. K. Nayak, CIT(DR) सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date of Hearing : 18/11/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 11/12/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Sh…

Ketan Ishwarlal Shah, Vapi vs. The Pr. CIT, Valsad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1496/AHD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Dec 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1496/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 Ketan Ishwarlal Shah, V Principal Commissioner Of Income 567,2797, Nehru Street, Near S. Tax, Hiten Studio, Vapi – 396192. Valsad. [Pan: Asmps 5062 Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Rajesh M.Upadhyay (Itp) राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Shri O.P.Singh – Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 24.10.2019 उ"घोषणाक"तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 10.12.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per O.P.Meena, Am: 1. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax- Valsad [In Short “The Pr. Cit ”] Dated 27.03.2017 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2007-08 Passed Under Section 263 Of Income Tax Act,1961 ( In Short ‘The Act’).

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

…nouncements, the Ld.Pr.CIT held that without examining and investigation the issue which has result in to not only order being erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The ld.Pr.CIT has relied in the case of Gee Vee Enterprise v. Addl. CIT 99 ITR 375(Del). Therefore, the order was considered erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue hence, was set-aside to the file of the AO with a direction to be made afresh after obtaining complete bank statement. 4. Aggrieved with order, the assessee filed this appeal before Tribunal. The learned counsel for the assessee vehemently contended…

Supreme Auto, Na

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1141/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh&Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1141/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 बनाम M/S. Supreme Auto, Principal Commissioner Of Vs. Bilimora Road, National Income-Tax- Valsad Highway No.8, Samroli, At Chikhli, Navsari - 396521. [Pan: Aamfs 3499 K] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Prasenjit Singh, Cit(D.R.) राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By 22.10.2019 सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 10.12.2019 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement On आदेश /O R D E R Per O. P. Meena, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax- Valsad [In Short “The Pr. Cit ”] Dated 22.03.2016 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2011-12 Passed Under Section 263 Of Income Tax Act,1961 ( In Short ‘The Act’).

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)Section 68

…to set-aside the issue to the AO for fresh examination. The Ld. CIT (DR) also relied on in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) : [2003] 183 CTR 228 (SC) : [2003] 131 Taxman 535 (SC) and Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Del). 10. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. We have gone through all the judgements cited by the parties before us. We note that section 263 of the Act enables supervisory jurisdiction to the Pr. CIT over the AO. The Pr. CIT is empowered to act u/s. 263 of the Act when he consid…

Jks Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT, Central - 1, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1073/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1073/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 24Section 263Section 68

…n made and not because there is anything wrong with the order if all the facts stated therein are assumed to be correct. We derive support for the proposition as stated above from the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises 99 ITR 375 (Del). We note that in the assessee`s case under consideration the present appeal pertains to assessee`s objection against the order dated 26.03.2018 passed by the Ld. Principal CIT, Central-1, Kolkata, u/s 263 of the Act holding the assessment order passed u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act on 31.03.2016 for A.Y. 2009-10 erroneous and prejudicial to the…

M/S. General Polytex Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. ITO, Ward - 1(1), Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2211/KOL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2008-09 M/S General Polytex Pvt. V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ltd., A-Wing, 6Th Floor, Ward-1(1), Aayakar International Commerce Bhawan, P-7, Centre (Icc), Near Chowringhee Kadiwala School, Ring Square,Kolkata-69 Road, Surat-395002 [Pan No.Ssvvb 5335 L] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent None अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Radehy Shyam, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 09-09-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 22-11-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2008-09 Arises Against The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Kolkata’S Order Dated 28.03.2018 Passed In Case M.No.Pr.Cit-1/Kol/Revision U/S263/2017- 18/14797-14800, Involving Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Case Called Twice. None Appears At Assessee’S Behest. The Registry Has Already Issued Rpad Notice Dated 20.08.2019 For Today’S (09.09.2019) Hearing. We Therefore Proceed Ex Parte Against The Assessee To Decide The Instant Appeal On Merits. 2. Case File Suggests That The Assessing Officer Had Framed Assessment / Re-Assessment In Assessee’S Case In Issue Dated 28.01.2016 Invoking Sec.

Section 133(6)Section 143Section 263

…clear non-application of mind on part of A.O. who has just accepted the claims of the assessee which has resulted in an erroneous assessment causing prejudice to revenue. 6. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of GEE VEE Enterprise vs. Addl. CIT reported in 99 ITR 375, 386 (Del) has held that the CIT may consider the order of the Assessing Officer to be erroneous not only if it contain some apparent error of reasoning or of law or of fact on the fact of it but also because the Assessing Officer has failed to make enquiries which are called for in the circumstances o the case and it is an order which simply acce…

M/S Lalchand Laxminarayan, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-44(2), Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 664/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2014-15 M/S Lalchand Laxminarayan, V/S. Income Tax Officer 67/47, Strand Road, Ward-44(2), 3 Govt. Kolkata-700 007 Place (West), [Pan No.Aabfl 1632 L] Kolkata-700 001 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Dr. A.K.Nayak, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 04-09-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 20-11-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Arises Against The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-15 Kolkata’S Order Dated 11.02.2019 Passed In M.No.Pcit-15/Kol/U/S.263/12/118-19/7305-07, Involving Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. We Advert To The Relevant Basic Facts. This Assessee Is A Partnership Firm Engaged In Trading In Sugar & Carrying Out Commission Agent Business. It Filed Its Return On 24.09.2014 Declaring Taxable Income Of ₹7,82,590/- Which Stood Processed U/S. 143(1) Of The Act. The Assessing Officer Thereafter Framed Regular Assessment On 30.11.2016 Disallowing 20% Of The Assessee’S Business Expenses Of ₹3,03,873/-; Coming To ₹60,774/-.

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

…uoting various judicial precedents i.e. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC), Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal vs. CIT (1973) 88 ITR 323 (SC), GEE VEE Enterprise Vs. Addl. CIT (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Del) that since the Assessing Officer had not conducted the due enquiries regarding assessee’s brokerage payments of Shri Kailash Nath Singh HUF as well as Sita Tiwari, the same is liable to be revised as erroneous causing prejudice to interest of Revenue as per sec. 263 as amended by way of “Explanation” with effect from 01.06.2015. This leaves…