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 367,154 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

Damodar Valley Corporation, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-9, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 401/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 Damadar Valley V/S. Dcit, Circle-9, Corporation, Dvc Towers Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, (4Th Floor), Vip Chowringhee Square Road,Kolkata-54 Kolkata-69 [Pan No.Aabcd 0541 M] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, Fca अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Md. Usman Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 17-01-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 21-02-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Dispute The Order Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Kolkata Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 12.01.2017 Set Aside The Assessment Order Date30.03.2015 For Assessment Year 2012-13 With A Direction To Re-Do The Assessment In Respect Of Issue Therein. Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, Ld. Authorized Representative Appeared On Behalf Of Assessee & Md. Usman, Ld. Departmental Representative Appeared On Behalf Of Revenue. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds:- “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit Was Unjustified In Law In Holding The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Passed For The A.Y. 2012-13 To Be Erroneous In So Far As It Was Prejudicial To The Interest Of

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ssing Officer. The impugned assessment order has been passed allowing prior period expenses of Rs.39,34,86,241/- without inquiring into the claim and without verification. 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 of fact on the face of it, but also because the Assessing Officer has failed to make enquiries which are called for in the circumstance of the case and it is an order which simply accep…

M/S Pricewaterhousecoopers LLP, Usa, Kolkata vs. CIT, (It & Tp), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 540/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Feb 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 540/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri J.P.Khaitan, ARFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 263Section 4Section 44A

…been filed by the Assessee. Thereafter the CIT discussed the legal position with regard to exercise of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. The main conclusion of the CIT is based on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises 99 ITR 375 (Delhi) wherein it was held that failure to make enquiry which the AO ought to have made in the given facts and 7 8 M/s Pricewater house Coopers LLP USA A.Yr.2010-11 circumstances of a case, before completing the assessment, renders his order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Thereafter the CIT concluded by setting aside t…

Jasamrit Constructions P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 6(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1091/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginer Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarm/S. Jasamrit Constructions Income Tax Officer-6(3)(2) Private Ltd. Room No. 503, 5Th Floor Flat No. 901, Building 'B' Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Ashok Tower, Near Itc Hotel Mumbai 400020 Parel, Mumbai 400017 Pan – Aabcj8295L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Aarju Goradia
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…. Nova Promotors & Finlease Pvt. Ltd. 342 ITR 169 (Del) xiv. Independent Media (P) Ltd. 210 Taxman 14 (Del) xv. CIT vs. Focus Exports Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 218/Del.2012 xvi. CIT vs. N R Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. 263 CTR 456 (Del) xvii. Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT 99 ITR 375 (Del) xviii. CIT vs. Divine Leasing and Finance Ltd. & Anr. 299 ITR 263 (Del) xix. Sumati Dayal vs. CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC) xx. Smt. Vasantibai N. Shaha vs. CIT 213 ITR 803 (Bom) a. Govindarajulu Mudaliar vs. CIT 34 ITR 807 (SC) xxi. VIP (P) Ltd. vs. CIT 265 ITR 202 (MP) xxii. CIT vs. Sophia Finance Ltd. 205 ITR 98 (Del) xxiii. CIT vs. Active Traders…

Startech Engineers, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 22, Mumbai

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

ITA 3898/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 Startech Engineers, Pr. Commissioner Of G-12, Sinhgarjane Soc. Income Tax-22, बनाम/ Maratha Colony, Room No.409, 4Th Floor, Vs. Santracruz (E), Piramal Chambers, Parel Mumbai-400055 Mumbai-400012 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaxfs3063J "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri D.C.Saboo & Shri Shyam Saboo राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Manjunatha Swamy-Dr

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

…, no grievance is caused to the assessee, because the assessee is at liberty to contest the observation made by the ld. Pr. Commissioner. Our view is fortified by the decision in Indian Textile vs CIT (157 ITR 112) (Mad.), Gee Vee Enterprises vs Addl. CIT (99 ITR 375)(Del.), Thalibai F Jain vs ITO 101 ITR 1 (Karn.) and CIT vs HPFC 186 Taxman 105 (HP), CIT vs Pushpa Devi 164 ITR 639 (Patna). We are aware that before the Ld. Commissioner invokes the revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act, he should get satisfied that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest o…

Solvay Pharma India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT RG 2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3585/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm M/S. Solvay Pharma India Ltd., Vs. Pr Cit Rg-2 Now Merged With Abbott India Aayakar Bhavan Ltd., Mumbai 3-4 Corporate Park Sion Trombay Road Mumbai – 400 071`` Pan/Gir No.Aaacbv5170B Appellant) Respondent) ..

Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

…s that no enquiry has been made by the AO, therefore, action of the CIT in branding the order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue is fully justified. 16. Reliance was placed by learned DR on the decision of Delhi High Court reported at 99 ITR 375 in the case of Horizon Investment Company reported at 187 ITR 401. Further reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements: 1) CIT V. Ballarpur Industries Ltd., ITR No. 27 of 2007 (Bombay High Court) 2) Jai Steel India V. Asstt. Commissioner of lncome-tax (2013) 259 CTR (Raj) 281 (High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur) 3) Rajmandir Estat…

Om Forging & Engineering Private Limited, Kolkata vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Kolkata

In the result the appeals are allowed

ITA 509/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am ]

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tibrewal, FCAFor Respondent: Md.Usman, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 263

…e enquiry which he ought to have made the order of the AO to be held as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In this regard the CIT placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises vs ACIT 99 ITR 375. The CIT ultimately set aside the order of the AO by concluding as follows :- “11. It may be further noticed. that in order to provide clarity on the issue of "erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue", a new Explanation has been inserted to clarify that an order passed by the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to be…

M/S. Dayanand Contractor, Rohtak vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

In the result, original

ITA 2807/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Kumar Kamal & Lalit MohanFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “B” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.2806 & 2807/Del./2016 Assessment Years 2009-2010 & 2010-2011 M/s. Dayanand Contractor The Pr. CIT V & PO Kharainti, Aayakar Bhavan, Delhi Road, Dist. Rohtak. vs. Rohtak – 124 001 PAN AADFD4239K Haryana. (Appellant) (Respondent) S/Shri Gautam Jain, Piyush For Assessee : Kumar Kamal & Lalit Mohan, Advocates For Revenue : Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT-D.R. Date of Hearing : 22.11.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 30.11.2017 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. Both the appeals b…

M/S. Dayanand Contractor, Rohtak vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

In the result, original

ITA 2806/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Kumar Kamal & Lalit MohanFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “B” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.2806 & 2807/Del./2016 Assessment Years 2009-2010 & 2010-2011 M/s. Dayanand Contractor The Pr. CIT V & PO Kharainti, Aayakar Bhavan, Delhi Road, Dist. Rohtak. vs. Rohtak – 124 001 PAN AADFD4239K Haryana. (Appellant) (Respondent) S/Shri Gautam Jain, Piyush For Assessee : Kumar Kamal & Lalit Mohan, Advocates For Revenue : Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT-D.R. Date of Hearing : 22.11.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 30.11.2017 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. Both the appeals b…

Dev Steel, Navi Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Navi Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 3752/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devang Gandhi, Pr. Cit, A/303, Balaji Gardens, Central-4, बनाम/ Sector-11, Koparkhairne, Mumbai Vs. Navi Mumbai-400709 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Abhpg0909N

Section 153ASection 263

…Thus, no grievance is caused to the assessee, because the assessee is at liberty to contest the observation made by the ld. Commissioner. Our view is fortified by the decision in Indian Textile vs CIT (157 ITR 112) (Mad.), Gee Vee Enterprises vs Addl. CIT (99 ITR 375)(Del.), Thalibai F Jain vs ITO 101 ITR 1 (Karn.) and CIT vs HPFC 186 Taxman 105 (HP), CIT vs Pushpa Devi 164 ITR 639 (Patna). We are aware that before the Ld. Commissioner invokes the revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act, he should get satisfied that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of…

Dev Steel, Navi Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Navi Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 3748/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devang Gandhi, Pr. Cit, A/303, Balaji Gardens, Central-4, बनाम/ Sector-11, Koparkhairne, Mumbai Vs. Navi Mumbai-400709 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Abhpg0909N

Section 153ASection 263

…Thus, no grievance is caused to the assessee, because the assessee is at liberty to contest the observation made by the ld. Commissioner. Our view is fortified by the decision in Indian Textile vs CIT (157 ITR 112) (Mad.), Gee Vee Enterprises vs Addl. CIT (99 ITR 375)(Del.), Thalibai F Jain vs ITO 101 ITR 1 (Karn.) and CIT vs HPFC 186 Taxman 105 (HP), CIT vs Pushpa Devi 164 ITR 639 (Patna). We are aware that before the Ld. Commissioner invokes the revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act, he should get satisfied that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of…

Devang Gandhi, Navi Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 3747/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devang Gandhi, Pr. Cit, A/303, Balaji Gardens, Central-4, बनाम/ Sector-11, Koparkhairne, Mumbai Vs. Navi Mumbai-400709 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Abhpg0909N

Section 153ASection 263

…Thus, no grievance is caused to the assessee, because the assessee is at liberty to contest the observation made by the ld. Commissioner. Our view is fortified by the decision in Indian Textile vs CIT (157 ITR 112) (Mad.), Gee Vee Enterprises vs Addl. CIT (99 ITR 375)(Del.), Thalibai F Jain vs ITO 101 ITR 1 (Karn.) and CIT vs HPFC 186 Taxman 105 (HP), CIT vs Pushpa Devi 164 ITR 639 (Patna). We are aware that before the Ld. Commissioner invokes the revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act, he should get satisfied that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of…

Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Karnal

In the result, all the 03 Appeals i

ITA 718/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor & Ms. Ananya KapoorFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(3)Section 250(6)Section 263

…nterfered with only because another view is possible.” 10.1 An order would be erroneous only when the AO makes no enquiries during the course of assessment proceedings. This principle was noticed by the Delhi High Court in Geevee Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT 99 ITR 375 (Del.). In arriving at this decision, the Delhi High Court drew strength from the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Rampyari Devi Sarogi vs. CIT 67 ITR 84 (SC) and Tara Devi Agarwal vs. CIT, 88 ITR 324 (SC). The underlying principle which emerges from these judgments is that if an assessment order is passed without making any enquir…

Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Karnal

In the result, all the 03 Appeals i

ITA 717/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor & Ms. Ananya KapoorFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(3)Section 250(6)Section 263

…nterfered with only because another view is possible.” 10.1 An order would be erroneous only when the AO makes no enquiries during the course of assessment proceedings. This principle was noticed by the Delhi High Court in Geevee Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT 99 ITR 375 (Del.). In arriving at this decision, the Delhi High Court drew strength from the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Rampyari Devi Sarogi vs. CIT 67 ITR 84 (SC) and Tara Devi Agarwal vs. CIT, 88 ITR 324 (SC). The underlying principle which emerges from these judgments is that if an assessment order is passed without making any enquir…

Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Karnal

In the result, all the 03 Appeals i

ITA 716/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor & Ms. Ananya KapoorFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(3)Section 250(6)Section 263

…nterfered with only because another view is possible.” 10.1 An order would be erroneous only when the AO makes no enquiries during the course of assessment proceedings. This principle was noticed by the Delhi High Court in Geevee Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT 99 ITR 375 (Del.). In arriving at this decision, the Delhi High Court drew strength from the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Rampyari Devi Sarogi vs. CIT 67 ITR 84 (SC) and Tara Devi Agarwal vs. CIT, 88 ITR 324 (SC). The underlying principle which emerges from these judgments is that if an assessment order is passed without making any enquir…

Sh. Vodafone Digilink Ltd., Karnal vs. CIT (TDS), Chandigarh

In the result, all the 03 Appeals i

ITA 3781/DEL/2013[2009-10 (F.Y. 2008-09)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2017

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor & Ms. Ananya KapoorFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(3)Section 250(6)Section 263

…nterfered with only because another view is possible.” 10.1 An order would be erroneous only when the AO makes no enquiries during the course of assessment proceedings. This principle was noticed by the Delhi High Court in Geevee Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT 99 ITR 375 (Del.). In arriving at this decision, the Delhi High Court drew strength from the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Rampyari Devi Sarogi vs. CIT 67 ITR 84 (SC) and Tara Devi Agarwal vs. CIT, 88 ITR 324 (SC). The underlying principle which emerges from these judgments is that if an assessment order is passed without making any enquir…

Sh. Vodafone Digilink Ltd., Karnal vs. CIT (TDS), Chandigarh

In the result, all the 03 Appeals i

ITA 3780/DEL/2013[2008-09 (F.Y. 2007- 08)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2017

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor & Ms. Ananya KapoorFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(3)Section 250(6)Section 263

…nterfered with only because another view is possible.” 10.1 An order would be erroneous only when the AO makes no enquiries during the course of assessment proceedings. This principle was noticed by the Delhi High Court in Geevee Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT 99 ITR 375 (Del.). In arriving at this decision, the Delhi High Court drew strength from the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Rampyari Devi Sarogi vs. CIT 67 ITR 84 (SC) and Tara Devi Agarwal vs. CIT, 88 ITR 324 (SC). The underlying principle which emerges from these judgments is that if an assessment order is passed without making any enquir…

Sh. Vodafone Digilink Ltd., Karnal vs. CIT (TDS), Chandigarh

In the result, all the 03 Appeals i

ITA 3779/DEL/2013[2007-08 (F.Y. 2006-07)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2017

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor & Ms. Ananya KapoorFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(3)Section 250(6)Section 263

…nterfered with only because another view is possible.” 10.1 An order would be erroneous only when the AO makes no enquiries during the course of assessment proceedings. This principle was noticed by the Delhi High Court in Geevee Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT 99 ITR 375 (Del.). In arriving at this decision, the Delhi High Court drew strength from the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Rampyari Devi Sarogi vs. CIT 67 ITR 84 (SC) and Tara Devi Agarwal vs. CIT, 88 ITR 324 (SC). The underlying principle which emerges from these judgments is that if an assessment order is passed without making any enquir…

Amricon Agrovet Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 756/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2013-14 Amrit Feeds Ltd. V/S. Dcit, Central Circle- 158, Lenin Sarani, 2Nd 2(1), 110, Shantipally, Floor, Kolkata-13 Em By-Pass, [Pan No.Aacca 5571 D] Kolkata-107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 Amrit Hatcheries Ltd. V/S. Dcit, Central Circle- 158, Lenin Sarani, 2Nd 2(1), 110, Shantipally, Floor, Kolkata-13 Em By-Pass, [Pan No.Aacca 5987 A] Kolkata-107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 801BSection 92C

…. Vs. DCIT, CC-2(1), Kol. Page 16 (SC) has held that in absence of proper enquiries, the assessment order would become erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprise-Vs-Addl. CIT (1975) 99 ITR 375 has also 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 rebuttal. The Civil Court is neutral. It simply gives decision on the basis…

Amricon Agrovet Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 755/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2013-14 Amrit Feeds Ltd. V/S. Dcit, Central Circle- 158, Lenin Sarani, 2Nd 2(1), 110, Shantipally, Floor, Kolkata-13 Em By-Pass, [Pan No.Aacca 5571 D] Kolkata-107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 Amrit Hatcheries Ltd. V/S. Dcit, Central Circle- 158, Lenin Sarani, 2Nd 2(1), 110, Shantipally, Floor, Kolkata-13 Em By-Pass, [Pan No.Aacca 5987 A] Kolkata-107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 801BSection 92C

…. Vs. DCIT, CC-2(1), Kol. Page 16 (SC) has held that in absence of proper enquiries, the assessment order would become erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprise-Vs-Addl. CIT (1975) 99 ITR 375 has also 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 rebuttal. The Civil Court is neutral. It simply gives decision on the basis…

Amrit Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 754/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2013-14 Amrit Feeds Ltd. V/S. Dcit, Central Circle- 158, Lenin Sarani, 2Nd 2(1), 110, Shantipally, Floor, Kolkata-13 Em By-Pass, [Pan No.Aacca 5571 D] Kolkata-107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 Amrit Hatcheries Ltd. V/S. Dcit, Central Circle- 158, Lenin Sarani, 2Nd 2(1), 110, Shantipally, Floor, Kolkata-13 Em By-Pass, [Pan No.Aacca 5987 A] Kolkata-107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 801BSection 92C

…. Vs. DCIT, CC-2(1), Kol. Page 16 (SC) has held that in absence of proper enquiries, the assessment order would become erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprise-Vs-Addl. CIT (1975) 99 ITR 375 has also 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 rebuttal. The Civil Court is neutral. It simply gives decision on the basis…