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 366,470 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

Gaurav Kumar Arya, New Delhi vs. PCIT -20, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2000/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Gaurav Kumar Arya, Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income 3-P, Pocket-4, Tax, Delhi-20, Kondly Gharoli-Ii, Mayur New Delhi. Vihar, Delhi-1100 96 Pan: Airpa0102C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: S/Shri K. Sampath & V. RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kaushal, CIT (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 263

…F KARNATAKA in the case of CIT vs. Infosys Technologies Ltd. 341 ITR 293 dated 04.01.2012 8. Order of Hon'ble Delhi ITAT in the case of CIT vs. Apollo Tyres Ltd., 65 ITD 263 9. Order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises vs Addl. CIT, 99 ITR 375 10. Order of Hon'ble Delhi Bench in the case of Perfetti Van Melle India Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 3046/Del/2016 for A.Y. 2009-10 order dated 11.01.2019 11. Order of Hon'ble Delhi Bench in the case of Ramesh Kumar., ITA No. 1982/Del/2018 for A.Y. 2014-15 order dated 25.01.2019; 12. Order of Hon'ble Delhi Bench in the case of Shanker Tradex Pvt. Ltd. vs.…

Aditi Thapar, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, and the matter is restored to the file of the CIT(Appeals) for de- novo adjudication in the interest of justice

ITA 1273/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Parin Shah, ArFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. DR
Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

…IT Asst.Year –2014-15 - 5– of the appellate authority are co-extensive with that of the Assessing Officer and include the power to set aside an assessment and direct a fresh adjudication. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Del) further observed that where the order is passed without proper inquiry or without considering relevant material, the matter should be remanded for fresh consideration. In the present case, the order passed by the CIT(Appeals) is cryptic and does not reflect due consideration of the material placed on record. There is no discussion on the evi…

Mohmedamin Mohmedumar General, Surat vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle), Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 522/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(iia)

…ustries Ltd. (supra), CIT vs. Paville Project Pvt. Ltd. (2023) 149 taxmann.com 115 (SC), CIT vs. Nagesh Knitwares Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. 345 ITR 135 (Del) and Gee Vee Enterprises ITA No.522/SRT/2025/AY 2018-19 Mohmedamin Mohmedmar General . vs. Addl.CIT (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Del). Accordingly, assessment order passed u/s 147 r.ws. 144B was set aside with a direction to AO to pass fresh assessment order after considering the issue as might have been already considered together with the issue discussed in the order u/s 263 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the order of ld. PCIT, the assessee has filed present appeal before…

Changela Mohanbhai R HUF, Near Bus Stand vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Aaykar Bhavan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 210/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Samir Jani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263

…adjudicator but 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 Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Changelamohan Bhai Enterprises v. Addl CIT [1995] 99 ITR 375], "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, therefore, obvious that when the circumstances are not such as to provoke an inquiry, he need not put every proposition to the test and probe everything stated in the income tax return. In a way, h…

Dhl Global Forwarding Freight Shared Services (India) LLP, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax (PCIT)-41, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2109/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarm/S Dhl Global Forwarding V/S. Principal Commissioner Of Freight Shared Services बनाम Income Tax (Pcit) – 41, Room (India) Llp No. 541, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 5Th Floor, A Wing 247 Park, To C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Lbs Road, Vikhroli West, Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai–400083, Maharashtra Mumbai–400051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aapfd3128F Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain a/w S.Chaugule, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, (CIT-DR)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 40a

…he section 263 of the Act. He placed reliance on the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Tara Devi Agarwal v. CIT [88 ITR 0323] and Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT [67 ITR 0084] and also on Gee Vee Enterprises V Additional Commissioner of Income –tax(1975),99 ITR 375(Delhi), CIT v Bhagwan Das(2005) 272 ITR 367 and also on Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. Vs DCIT(2019) 111 taxmann.com 353 etc. P a g e | 8 A.Y. 2020-21 M/S DHL Global Forwarding Freight Shared Services (India) LLP, Mumbai 5.1 Accordingly, he was of the opinion that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the rev…

Sharada Electors Private Limited, Pune vs. PCIT, Pune-3, Pune

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

ITA 1432/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 263

…clusion that the ITO's order was erroneous inasmuch as it was not passed after a full enquiry and a proper investigation and that it is also prejudicial to the revenue. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. Addl. CIT & Ors (Del) 99 ITR 375, has held that an Income Tax Officer is not only an adjudicator but also an investigator and that an order passed by the Assessing Officer without conducting proper enquiries can be regarded as erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. The Hon'ble Court has observed as under- ..... The Commissioner can regard the order as erroneous on the ground…

Sha Pratapchand Pukharaj and Company, Vijayapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Bijapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2547/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha R., A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 253Section 253(5)Section 263

…ITA No.2547/Bang/2024 Sha Pratapchand Pukhraj and Company, Vijayapur IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sha Pratapchand Pukhraj and Company C/o Shri S. Parthasarathi, Advocate No.3/1, ‘Pranava Complex’ PCIT Vs. 5th Cross, Malleswaram Hubballi Bangalore 560 003 PAN NO :AADFS9212M APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Smt. Pratibha R., A.R. Respondent by : Sri Subramanian S., D.R. Date of Hearing : 18.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 15.09.2025 O R D E R PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL…

Vanigota Sugar Trading Company, Vijapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Bijapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2545/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha R., A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 253(5)Section 263

…ITA No.2545/Bang/2024 Vanigota Sugar Trading Company, Vijaypur IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2017-18 Vanigota Sugar Trading Company C/o Sri S. Parthasarathi, Advocate No.3/1, “Pranava Complex” 5th Cross, Malleswaram Vs. PCIT Bangalore 560003 Hubballi PAN NO : AAAFV8614K APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Smt. Pratibha R., A.R. Respondent by : Sri Subramanian S., D.R. Date of Hearing : 18.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 15.09.2025 O R D E R PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: T…

Sachin Notified Area, Surat vs. Pr. CIT, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 248/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 10(20)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 263

…provisions of section 263 of the Act after relying of the decisions in cases of Malabar Industries Ltd., 243 ITR 83 (SC), Pavile Projects (P.) Ltd., 149 taxmann.com 115, Nagesh Knitwears P. Ltd. & Ors., 345 ITR 135 (Del) and Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT, 99 ITR 375 (Del), set aside the order of AO with a direction to pass fresh assessment order after taking into consideration the issues discussed in the order u/s 263 of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the order of ld. PCIT, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee has filed a paper book and relied…

Sachin Notified Area, Surat vs. Pr. CIT, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 247/SRT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 10(20)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 263

…provisions of section 263 of the Act after relying of the decisions in cases of Malabar Industries Ltd., 243 ITR 83 (SC), Pavile Projects (P.) Ltd., 149 taxmann.com 115, Nagesh Knitwears P. Ltd. & Ors., 345 ITR 135 (Del) and Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT, 99 ITR 375 (Del), set aside the order of AO with a direction to pass fresh assessment order after taking into consideration the issues discussed in the order u/s 263 of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the order of ld. PCIT, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee has filed a paper book and relied…

Sachin Notified Area, Surat vs. Pr. CIT, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 246/SRT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 10(20)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 263

…provisions of section 263 of the Act after relying of the decisions in cases of Malabar Industries Ltd., 243 ITR 83 (SC), Pavile Projects (P.) Ltd., 149 taxmann.com 115, Nagesh Knitwears P. Ltd. & Ors., 345 ITR 135 (Del) and Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT, 99 ITR 375 (Del), set aside the order of AO with a direction to pass fresh assessment order after taking into consideration the issues discussed in the order u/s 263 of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the order of ld. PCIT, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee has filed a paper book and relied…

Sachin Notified Area, Surat vs. The Pr. Commissioner O Income Tax - 1, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 223/SRT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 10(20)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 263

…provisions of section 263 of the Act after relying of the decisions in cases of Malabar Industries Ltd., 243 ITR 83 (SC), Pavile Projects (P.) Ltd., 149 taxmann.com 115, Nagesh Knitwears P. Ltd. & Ors., 345 ITR 135 (Del) and Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT, 99 ITR 375 (Del), set aside the order of AO with a direction to pass fresh assessment order after taking into consideration the issues discussed in the order u/s 263 of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the order of ld. PCIT, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee has filed a paper book and relied…

Jayesh Khimji Khimasiya HUF, Jamnagar vs. Office of Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Jamnagar

ITA 6/RJT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 263

…ch is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In this interpretation of the provisions of the section 263, we are supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court delivered in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises Vs Add.CIT (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Delhi). The same view has also been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Company Ltd Vs. CIT 243 ITR Mansukhlal khimji and others v. PCIT ITA No.3,4,5,6/Rjt/2024 AY.2012-13 & 2013-14 83 (SC). The relevant portion of this judgment which supports our view made in this paragraph above, is reproduced as under: "An i…

Bhanuben Mansukhlal Khimasiya, Jamnagar vs. Office of Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Jamnagar

ITA 5/RJT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 263

…ch is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In this interpretation of the provisions of the section 263, we are supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court delivered in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises Vs Add.CIT (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Delhi). The same view has also been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Company Ltd Vs. CIT 243 ITR Mansukhlal khimji and others v. PCIT ITA No.3,4,5,6/Rjt/2024 AY.2012-13 & 2013-14 83 (SC). The relevant portion of this judgment which supports our view made in this paragraph above, is reproduced as under: "An i…

Mansukhlal Khimji Khimasiya, Jamnagar vs. Office of Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Jamnagar

ITA 4/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 263

…ch is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In this interpretation of the provisions of the section 263, we are supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court delivered in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises Vs Add.CIT (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Delhi). The same view has also been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Company Ltd Vs. CIT 243 ITR Mansukhlal khimji and others v. PCIT ITA No.3,4,5,6/Rjt/2024 AY.2012-13 & 2013-14 83 (SC). The relevant portion of this judgment which supports our view made in this paragraph above, is reproduced as under: "An i…

Mansukhlal Khimji Khimasiya HUF, Jamnagar vs. Office of Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Jamnagar

ITA 3/RJT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 263

…ch is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In this interpretation of the provisions of the section 263, we are supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court delivered in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises Vs Add.CIT (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Delhi). The same view has also been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Company Ltd Vs. CIT 243 ITR Mansukhlal khimji and others v. PCIT ITA No.3,4,5,6/Rjt/2024 AY.2012-13 & 2013-14 83 (SC). The relevant portion of this judgment which supports our view made in this paragraph above, is reproduced as under: "An i…

Anil Kumar Batar, Sikar vs. PCIT-Jaipur-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 418/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 263

…is not only an adjudicator but 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 ACIT [(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, 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 test and probe everyt…

Qader Abdul Razzaque Abdul, Aurangabad vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Nashik

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 937/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.937/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Qader Abdul Razzaque Abdul, Principal Commissioner M/S. Captain Color Home Opp. Of Income Tax, Nashik-1 Bhartiya Hospital Raja Bazar Chh. Vs. Sambhajinagar (Aurangabad), Pin Code-431001 Pan : Acqpk8963L अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Shubham N. Rathi Department By : Shri Amit Bobde Date Of Hearing : 24-06-2025 Date Of 04-09-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order

For Appellant: Shri Shubham N. RathiFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 69

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “बी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.937/PUN/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Qader Abdul Razzaque Abdul, Principal Commissioner M/s. Captain Color Home Opp. of Income Tax, Nashik-1 Bhartiya Hospital Raja Bazar Chh. Vs. Sambhajinagar (Aurangabad), Pin Code-431001 PAN : ACQPK8963L अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Shubham N. Rathi Department by : Shri Amit Bobde Date of hearing : 24-06-2025 Date of 04-09-2025 Pr…

Shhlok Triton Associates, Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is allowed

ITA 638/SRT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.638/Srt/2024 Assessment Year:(2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) M/S Shhlok Triton Associates, Vs. Pcit – 1, F.P. No. 388, Paikee Udhna Surat Darwaja, Ring Road, Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aclfs6819A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 18/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/08/2025

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

…ts Pvt. Ltd., 149 taxman.com 115 (SC), CIT vs. Nagesh Neatwears Pvt. Ltd., 345 ITR 135 (Delhi), ITO ITA No.638/SRT/2024/AY 2014-15 Shhlok Triton Associates vs. D. G. Housing Projects Ltd., (ITA No.179/2011 – Delhi HC) and Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT, 99 ITR 375 (Delhi) and held that the order passed by the AO on 09.12.2016 u/s 143(3) of the Act was erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of revenue. Hence, the order of AO was set aside with a direction to pass fresh assessment order after taking into consideration the issues as might have been already considered together with the issues…

Guru Kripa Associates, Bareilly vs. Pr. CIT, Bareilly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 97/LKW/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow14 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 263

…n order to assist someone else who would have been assessed to a larger amount, the assessment to made can certainly be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue." (iv) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises v/s Addl.CIT(1975) 99 ITR 375(Delhi) following the aforesaid abpve two judgements of the Hon'ble Apex Court held that "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 minimum amount of evidence may be accepted by Civil Court in absence of any rebuttal. The Civil Court is neutral. It s…