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

Shri Kartick Chandra Mondal, Hooghly vs. Principal CIT - 8, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 322/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Dr. Shri P. K. Srihari, CIT/ld.DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 54Section 54E

…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). 11. Now, Coming to the facts of the assessee`s case, we note that it is not in dispute that assessee had deposited the capital gain amount arising from sale of two properties in Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd, Bond as per the scheme of the Government. The investment in the REC Bond was made by assessee on 30.08.2011. The sale deed w…

Kamal Coke Industries Pvt. Ltd. (Now Known As Kamal Coke Industries LLP), Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 1(1), Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2442/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.2442/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Kamal Coke Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Kolkata (Now Known As Kamal Coke Industries Llp), Kolkata. 209, A.J.C Bose Road, Karnani Estate, Room No.119, Kolkata – 700017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadck5324K (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri A. K. Nayak, Cit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 03/09/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per S. S. Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) - 1, Kolkata Dated 22.02.2017 Passed In Case No.F.No.Pr.Cit-1/Kol/Revision U/S 263/2016-17/13640-43 Involving Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’). Case Called Twice. None Appears At Assessee’S Behest. Case File Suggests That Rpad Notices Dated 30.07.2019 & 03.09.2019 Stand Returned Unserved. We Therefore Proceed Ex Parte Against The Assessee/Appellant In The Main Appeal. 2. It Emerges At The Outset That This Assessee’S Appeal Suffers From 219 Days’ Delay In Filing. Its Condonation Petition Dated 11.12.2017 Pleads That It Had Not Been Properly Advised By Its Auditor/Counsel Regarding Maintainable Of The Instant Appeal. All These Solemn Averments Have Gone Unrebutted From The Revenue Side.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Nayak, CIT

Section 263

…e therefore quote hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision Malabar Industrial Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243 83(SC), Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 & Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC) & Gee Vee Enterprise v. Addl. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 375(Delhi) to hold that such a failure on account of the Assessing Officer’s action in carrying out necessary inquiries during the course of scrutiny render an assessment erroneous causing prejudice to interest of Revenue. 5. It has further been pointed out at the Revenue’s behest that the tribunal’s coordinate bench’s similar order upholding the CIT…

Dev Raj Garg, Shahabad (M) vs. Pr. CIT, Karnal

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 774/CHANDI/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Chhabra, AdvFor Respondent: CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

…regard. 8. 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 the…

M/S. La Opala RG Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Range - 12, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 559/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 80ISection 80l

…1 La Opala RG Ltd.., AY- 2013-14 आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “C” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA (सम") "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं डॉ. अजु"न लाल सैनी, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, JM & Dr. A. L. Saini, AM] I.T.A. No. 559/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. La Opala R. G. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, (PAN: AAACL5569J) Range-12, Kolkata Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 18.09.2019 Date of Pronouncement 31.10.2019 For the Appellant Shri A. K. Tulsyan, FCA & Ms. Shikha Agarwal, ACA For the Respondent Dr. P. K. Srihari, CIT, DR ORDER Per S…

Virandra Kumar Gupta, New Delhi vs. CIT, International Texation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2055/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri V.P. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sulekha Verma, Sr.D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263

…ITR 53 (SC) 6. CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan 384 ITR 200 dated May 11, 2016 (SC) 7. PTC Impex (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, ITA No.2860/Del/2010 dated 03.04.2018 (Tribunal) 8. CIT vs. Infosys Technologies Ltd., 341 ITR 293 (Kar.) 9. Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT, 99 ITR 375 (Del.) 10. Perfetti Van Melle India Pvt. Ltd., ITA No.3046/Del/2016 for A.Y. 2009-10 order dated 11.01.2019 (Delhi.) 11. Ramesh Kumar, ITA No.1982/Del/2018 for Assessment Year 2014-15 dated 25.01.2019.” 7. We have heard the rival submissions and also perused the relevant findings given in the impugned order as well as material referred to before…

Rajgul Ctrditnvest P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. Prcit, Delhi-7, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 2519/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT(DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 44ASection 68

…f India in the case of CIT vs. Amitabh Bachan 384 ITR 200 dated 11.5.2016. - Order of ITAT, F Bench in the case of PTC Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT, ITA No. 2860/Del/2010 dated 3.4.2018. - Delhi High Court decision in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT, 99 ITR 375. - ITAT, Delhi Bench decision in the case of Perfetti Van Melle India Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 3046/Del/2016 for AY 2008-09 order dated 11.1.2019. - ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Ramesh Kumar, ITA No. 1982/Del/2018 for AY 2014-15 dated 25.1.2019. - ITAT, Delhi order in the case of CIT vs. Apollo Tyres Ltd. 65 ITD 263. 5. We have carefully considered t…

Dipal Piyush Palkiwala, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2(1)(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee i

ITA 3462/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.839/Ahd/2015 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.3462/Ahd/2016 { "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dipal Piyush Palkhiwala, Ito Ward-4(4) 27, Rivera Greens, 1St Floor, Vs Gokuldham Navjeevan Trust Building Sarkhej-Sanand Road, Sanathal, Ahmedabad-380014 Ahmedabad-382210 अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Aseem Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Smt. Rita Dokania, Cit- Dr

For Appellant: Shri Aseem Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Rita Dokania, CIT- DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…o 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 ITA Nos839/Ahd/2015 & ITANo. 3462/Ahd/2016 Dipal Piyush Palkhiwala For AY 2010-11 13 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…

Dipal Piyush Palkiwala, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-4(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee i

ITA 839/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Aseem Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Rita Dokania, CIT- DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

Mahim Patran P. Ltd, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT -2, Agra

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

ITA 195/AGR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra02 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 143(3)Section 199(1)Section 205Section 263

…is stereo- typed, in as much as, the Assessing Officer, accepts what is stated in the return of the assessee without making any enquiry called for in the circumstances of the case, that is, proceeds with undue haste". [Gee Vee Enterprises v. Asstt. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Delhi)] (iv) The expression "prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue" while not to be confused with the loss of tax will certainly include an erroneous order which results in a person not paying tax which is lawfully payable to the Revenue. [See Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd.]. (v) Every loss of tax to the Revenue cannot be treated as being "pr…

Abhiruchi Foods, Penumantra Mandal, W.G.Dist vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tanuku

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 214/VIZ/2018[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Aug 2019AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Blem/S. Abhiruchi Foods, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, D.No. 4-41/1, Canal Road, Tanuku. Mallipudi, Penumantra Mandal, West Godavari District. Pan No. Aamfa 5538 M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.V. Subba Rao– Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)

…nt proceedings with reference to the bank accounts and the income tax returns of the respective parties and make appropriate addition, if necessary on due verification.” 8. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. Addl. CIT [(1975) 99 ITR 375 (Delhi)] has considered the role of the Assessing Officer which is as under:- “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 he accepted by a civil court in the absence of any rebuttal. The civil court is neutral. It s…

Udit Prasad Babu, Sambalpur vs. CIT, Sambalpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 239/CTK/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack31 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.239/Ctk/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Udit Prasad Babu, Vs. Pr. Cit, Sambalpur New Colony, Budharaja, Sambalpur स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan No. : Aaypb 0331 K (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri B.Panda, Senior Advocate With Shri B.R. Panda, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.M.Keshkamat, Citdr

For Appellant: Shri B.Panda, Senior Advocate with Shri B.R. Panda, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.M.Keshkamat, CITDR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 264

…ng which should have provoked further examination or at least being dealt by way of a speaking order, but the Assessing Officer chose to remain silent on the same. As observed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Delhi), "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 basis of the pleading and evidence which…

M/S. Dwarkadhis Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., Bhiwani vs. CIT, Hisar

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

ITA 3097/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jul 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Sh. Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2006-07 Dwarkadhis Buildwell Pvt. Ltd Cit C/O N. K. Jain, Advocate Naya Vs Hisar Bazar, Bhiwani Pan No. Aaccd1951E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Naveen Gupta Ca Shri Ashu Goyal, Ca Sh. Ashok Kumar Jain, Ca Respondent By Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 16/04/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 01/07/2019 Order

Section 133ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 263

…ustrial Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 243 ITR 83 (SC) 2. Bharat Overseas Bank Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 152 TTJ 546 (Chennai) 3. Pratap Footwear Vs. ACIT 1 SOT 638 (Jabalpur) 4. Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax 99 ITR 375 5. CIT Vs. Nagesh Knitwear ITA No.591/2008 order dated 01.06.2012. 19. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee in his rejoinder submitted that in the case of Deniel Merchants Private Limited (supra) no enquiry was conducted by the AO whereas in the instant case enequiries were conducted twice i.e. once during the original assessment proceedings passed u/…

Ankush Garg, Rohtak vs. CIT, Rohtak

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

ITA 2287/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 143(3)Section 263

…the enquiry. In such cases, the order becomes erroneous because enquiry or verification has not been made and not because a wrong order has been passed on merits. Delhi High Court in Gee Vee Enterprises v. Additional Commission of Income-Tax, Delhi-I, (1975) 99 ITR 375, has observed as under: "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 ITA No. 2287 & 2288/Del/2015 8 be accepted by a civil court in the absence of any rebuttal. The civil court is neutral. It simply gives decision o…

Anandalok, Kolkata vs. CIT(Exemption), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1064/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. P.M.Jagtap & Sh.S.S.Viswanethra Ravianandlok, Vs Cit(Exem.), Dk-7/3, Salt Lake City, 10B, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700091. 6Th Floor, Kolkata-700071. Pan-Aaata5320P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Rajeeva Kumar, Adv. Respondent By Sh. A.K.Nayak, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 14.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 08.05.2019 Order Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravithis Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 14.03.2017 Passed By Cit(E), Kolkata For Ay 2012-13. 2. The Only Issue Is To Be Decided As To Whether Cit Is Justified In Exercising His Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “Act”) In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

Section 131Section 147Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “A”, KOLKATA BEFORE SH. P.M.JAGTAP, VICE PRESIDENT & SH.S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Anandlok, vs CIT(Exem.), DK-7/3, Salt Lake City, 10B, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700091. 6th Floor, Kolkata-700071. PAN-AAATA5320P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Rajeeva Kumar, Adv. Respondent by Sh. A.K.Nayak, CIT DR Date of Hearing 14.03.2019 Date of Pronouncement 08.05.2019 ORDER PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 14.03.2017 passed by CIT(E), Kolkata for AY 2012-13. 2. The only issue is to be de…

Morakhia Metal & Alloys Pvt.Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-4, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 1113/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 263

…he investigation where facts are required to be examined and verified, “the order becomes erroneous because enquiry or verification has not been made and not because a wrong order has been passed on merits”. In the case of Gee Vee Enterprises vs. ACIT [(1975) 99 ITR 375 (Del)], it is observed that “the Income Tax Officer is 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... The order becomes erroneous because such an enquiry has not been made and not because anything is wrong with the order if all the fac…

Sheth Commercial Co., Kolkata vs. CIT-14 Kolkata, Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1406/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: FixedITAT Kolkata16 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13 Sheth Commercial Co. V/S. Pr. Cit-14, C/O D.J. Shah & Co. 3, Government Place, Kalyan Bhavan, 2 Elgin Kolkata-700001 Road, Kolkata-700020 [Pan No.Aakfs 409 H] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Miraj D Shah, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri P.K. Shrhari, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 13-03-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 16-04-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-14, Kolkata’S Order Dated 20.03.2017 Directing The Assessing Officer To Frame Afresh Assessment After Setting Aside The Regular One Framed Dated 23.03.2015 In Exercising Revision Jurisdiction Vested U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). We Have Heard Shri Miraj D Shah Learned Authorized Representative For Assessee & Shri P.K.Srihari, Cit/Dr Appearing At Revenue’S Behest. Case File Perused. 2. It Transpires During The Course Of Hearing That The Assessee’S Pleading Challenge Correctness Of The Pcit’S Order Revising The Regular Assessment In Issue Framed By The Assessing Officer On 06.07.2016 With Directions To Frame

Section 1Section 263Section 35(1)(c)

…the case the impugned assessment order for AY 2012-13 u/s 143(3) dated 23.03.2015 is deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the 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 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…

Mohd. Momineen Qureshi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 46(1), New Delhi

In the result appeal of assessee dismissed

ITA 1987/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Apr 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kakkar, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Parmita M. Biswas, CIT-DR

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

…Momineen Qureshi, New Delhi. Therefore, Explanation-2 to Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, would be clearly attracted in the case of the assessee. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises vs., Addl. CIT, Delhi-1 And Others (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Del.) held as under : “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. It is because it is incumbent on the Income-tax Officer to further investigate the facts stated in the return when circumstances would make such an inquiry prudent that the word “err…

Bagrrys India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT- 2, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3785/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Bindal, Adv. & Ms. SweetyFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT-D.R

Section 115JSection 139Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

…ied to compute the taxable income. If the AO fail to conduct the said investigation, he commits an error and the word 'erroneous' includes failure to make enquiry. 5. Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court laid down in case of Gee Vee Enterprises Vs Additional CIT 99 ITR 375(Dell that AO is having role of an investigator and it is Duty of the AO to ascertain the truth of the facts stated in the Return when circumstances would make such an enquiry prudent. It has clearly held that the order becomes 'erroneous' because such an enquiry has not been made. 6. NIIT Vs Commissioner of Income-tax (Central-II) [2015] 60 taxman…

Rajesh Kumar, Hisar vs. CIT, Hisar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3337/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Rajesh Kumar, Vs. Cit, 1931, Gate No. 2, Behind Hisar M.G. Road, Hisar Pan :Aohpk1201L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Manoj Kumar, Adv. Respondent By Smt. Sulekha Verma, Cit(Dr)

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

…erroneous because the enquiry or verification has not been made and not because wrong order has been passed on the merits.” 7.14 Similarly, Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-I, (1975) 99 ITR 375 has observed that “the word erroneous in section 263 includes the failure to make an Inquiry when the circumstances would make such an Inquiry prudent.” 7.15 Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramadevi Saraogi versus CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) has also given similar observation that “where the Assessing Officer is accepted a 17 particular content…

Philips India Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT-IV, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1142/KOL/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Mar 2019AY 2009-2010

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 1142/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Philips India Limited..........……………………………………....………………..…………………….….Appellant Earlier Known As Philips Electronics India Limited 7 No. Justice Chandra Madhab Road Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Aabcp 9487 A] Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - Iv, Kolkata…….............…....................…...Respondent Appearances By: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate & Shri Navneet Misra, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 10Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 27Th, 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :-

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32

…gh. If the relevant enquiry was not made it may in appropriate cases amount to no enquiry and may also be a case of non-application of mind. We are supported in our view by the following judgments :— (a) In the case of Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 the Delhi High Court opined as follows :— "It is not necessary for the Commissioner to make further inquiries before cancelling the assessment order of the Income-tax Officer. 19 I.T.A. No. 1142/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Philips India Limited The Commissioner can regard the order as erroneous on the ground that in the circumstances of…