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 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 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

Goel Eisha Capitals, Pune vs. PCIT(Central), Pune

ITA 1006/PUN/2024[AY 2019 - 20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Krishna GujarathiFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…n available with the Assessing Officer has not been utilised during the assessment proceedings which makes the case fit for applying the provisions of explanation 2 (a) of section 263. • Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises vs AddI. CIT 99 ITR 375 has clearly held that the Commissioner can regard the order as erroneous on the ground that in the circumstances of the case. ITO should have made further inquiries before accepting the statements made by the assessee in his return. 7. Provisions of Explanation 2 of Section 263 (1), are reproduced here under: Explanation 2.-For the purposes of thi…

Ms. Shree Waheguru Fashions Pvt. Ltd., Ring Road, Surat vs. PCIT, Aayakar Bhavan, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 402/SRT/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.402/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2020-21) (Hybrid Hearing) M/S Shree Waheguru Fashions Principal Commissioner Of बनाम/ Pvt. Ltd., B-1110, Radha Krishna Vs. Income-Tax (Central), Textile Market, Ring Road, Surat Central Circle-1, Surat, Aayakar - 395002 Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aahcs 9568 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 263

…to the interest of revenue. The Ld.PCIT also relied on the decisions in the cases of CIT vs. Paville Projects (P.) Ltd. (2023) 149 taxmann.com 115 (SC); CIT vs. Nagesh Knitwear’s P. Ltd. and Others (2012) 345 ITR 135 (Del); Gee Vee Enterprises vs. ACIT (197) 99 ITR 375 (Del). The Ld. PCIT also referred to Explanation-2(a) of Section 263, inserted with effect from 01.06.2015, wherein the order of AO shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of Revenue, if, in the opinion of the Ld.PCIT, the order is passed without making enquiries or verification which should have been made.…

Praveen Tyagi, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Ghaziabad

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2832/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Agarwal, Hon'Bleasstt. Year: 2011-12 Umesh Garg, Vs. Ito, Ward 2(4), 105, Konark Colony, Meerut Roorkee Road, Meerut (Pan: Afgpg0404B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Sanjay Malik, Adv. Respondent By : Shri Surender Pal, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Malik, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…O in this regard. Failure to enquire into the glaring issues during the course of assessment proceedings by the AO tantamounts to the assessment being rendered erroneous. Reliance is further placed on the following judgment: Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT, 99 ITR 375 (Del.) in which it was held that it is not necessary for the Commissioner to make further inquiries before cancelling 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 accepting the s…

Shri Pareshkumar Narshibhai Siroya, Dhoraji, Dist. Rajkot vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

ITA 127/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.127/Rjt/2022

For Appellant: Shri Samir Bhuptani, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Ld. CIT. DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44ASection 68

…was made by ld. PCIT on following cases: 1. Rampyari Devi Sarogi Vs. CIT (SC) 67 ITR 84 2. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT(SC) 243 ITR 83 3. Swarup Vegetable Products Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT (ALL) 187 ITR 412 4. Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. Addl.CIT&Ors (Del.) 99 ITR 375 5. Rajalakshmi Mills Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITAT, SB-Chennai) 121 ITD 343, 313 ITR(AT) 182 6. SRM Systems & Software Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT 2010-TIOL-646-HC- MAD-IT. 7. Shakti Credits Ltd Vs. CIT 2015 Tax Pub (DT) 3058 (Luck.'A¹ Trib) 8. Shoreline Hotel PvtLtd. Vs. CIT 2015 Tax Pub (DT) 2982 (Mum.'E…

Sbs Biotech Unit II, Sirmour vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 413/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Pal Garg, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 801CSection 80I

…quiry. 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." vi) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax, [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Delhi), has observed as under: 25 "The reason is obvious. The position and function of the Income-Tax Officer is very different from that of a civil court. The statements made in a pleading proved by the minimum amount of evidence may be accepted by a civil court in the absence of any rebuttal. The civil court is neutral. It simply gives decisio…

Engineering Professional Co. Pvt Ltd, Surat vs. PCIT-1, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 541/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.541/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Engineering Professional Co. Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Pcit -1, 444, Royal Arcade, Opp. Sarthana Zoo, Surat Varachha Road, Near Sarthana Jakatnaka, Surat – 395006, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabce0313Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 13/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/02/2025

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263

…stries Ltd. vs. CIT, 243 ITR 83 (SC), CIT vs. Pavilee Projects Pvt. Ltd., 149 taxman.com 115 (SC), CIT vs. Nagesh Neatwears Pvt. Ltd., 345 ITR 135 (Delhi), ITO vs. D. G. Housing Projcts 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 18.04.2021 u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Act was erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of revenue. Hence, the order was set aside with a direction to the AO to pass fresh assessment order after taking into consideration the issues as might have been already considered together…

City Land Associates, Amravati vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 27/NAG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durgarao & Shrik.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri R.B. AtalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263

…as also the income declared therein. It is his duty to ascertain the truth of the facts stated in the return. Where the circumstances indicate to provoke an inquiry, then the same should not be withhold. In a landmark decision in the case of G.V. Enterprises, 99 ITR 375, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that "inadequacy of inquiry is a good reason for invoking the proceedings under section 263 of the Act." In any case, we are not confining our decision entirely on the issue of "lack of inquiry" or "inadequate inquiry". From the side of the assessee the learned authorized representative, Mr. Tushar P. lilmani…

Cambridge Technology Enterprises Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 536/HYD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.536/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S Cambridge Technology Vs. Dcit Enterprises Limited Circle-1(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Aaacu3358G] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Shiva Sewak, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 28/10/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 24/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.03.2019 Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [Ld.Pcit], Hyderabad Pertaining To A.Y.2012-13. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company, Engaged In The Business Of Rendering Software Services, Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y.2012-13 On 26.09.2012, Admitting Total Income Of Rs.4,05,55,380/- Under Normal Provisions Of Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) & Rs.1,47,09173/-

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Sewak, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)

…reme Court in the case of Smt.Tara Devi Aggarwal Vs. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 and in the case of Rampyari Devi Saraogi Vs. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 (SC), Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises Ltd. Vs.Additional Commissioner of Income Tax [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Delhi) and Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai in the 10 Cambridge Technology Enterprises Limited case of Radiant Life Care Mumbai Pvt. Ltd. Vs. PCIT in ITA No.895 & 896/Mum/2021. 10. We have heard both the parties, perused the material on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We have also carefully considered the relevant case laws relied…

Poonam Marwaha, Amritsar vs. ACIT DCIT Cen Cir, Amritsar

ITA 306/ASR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Vikram Singh Yadav & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 44ASection 69

…r support. 25. It is a matter of record that proper enquiry was made by the AO and therefore, it cannot be stated that no enquiry was made by the AO. In this regard reliance is being placed upon the order of Delhi High Court in Geevee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT 99 ITR 375 (Del.)that order would be erroneous only when the AO makes no enquiries during the course of assessment proceedings. In arriving at this decision, the Delhi High Court drew strength from the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 and Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC). The unde…

Horizon Dwellings Private Limited, Bareilly vs. PCIT, Bareilly

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

ITA 77/LKW/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriahorizon Dwellings Pvt Ltd V. Pcit, Bareilly, Navjeevan Appartments, Income Tax Department, Opposite Parag Factory, Bareilly (Up)-243001. Badaun Road, Kargaina, Bareilly-243001. Pan:Aacch6839F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl

Section 143(3)Section 263

…nd revision." Your Honour will appreciate the fact that provisions of section 263 of the Act do not permit substituting one opinion by another opinion. Placing reliance on the decision of Hon’b le Supreme Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises vs ACIT(1975) 99 ITR 375 (SC), where it is held that 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 statement made by the assessee in his return but merely on the basis that some more was to be conducted the assessment order cannot be held as erroneous…

Rajendra Rameshlal Gugale, Pune vs. Prinicipal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1676/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari, CIT

Section 1Section 127Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263Section 269SSection 69C

…able with the Assessing Officer has not been utilised during the assessment proceedings which makes the case fit for applying the provisions of explanation 2 (a) of section 263.” • Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises vs Addl. CIT, 99 ITR 375 has clearly held that the Commissioner can regard the order as erroneous on the ground that in the circumstances of the case, ITO should have made further inquiries before accepting the statements made by the assessee in his return. 7. In view of the above facts and the judicial precedents, it is seen that Assessing Officer has not properly 1…

Shree Shyam Buildstructure Private Limited, Sikar vs. ITO Ward -1, Sikar

Appeals are allowed

ITA 818/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. R. S. Poonia, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ,o Jh ujsUnzdqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;djvihy la-@ITA Nos. 815 & 818/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@AssessmentYears :2014-15 & 2016-17 cuke Shree Shyam Buildstructure ITO, Vs. Private Limited, Sikar Ward-1, Sikar LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAPCS 7028 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Sh. R. S. Poonia, CA & Sh. Rakesh Bhoot, CA jktLo dh vksjls@R…

Shree Shyam Buildstructure Private Limited, Sikar vs. ITO Ward -1, Sikar

Appeals are allowed

ITA 815/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. R. S. Poonia, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 263

A.B. Sugars Limited, Punjab vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 300/CHANDI/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Dec 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Singla, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80ISection 92C

…quiry. 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." v) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax, [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Delhi), has observed as under: "The reason is obvious. The position and function of the income Tax Officer is very different from that of a civil court. The statements made in a pleading proved by the minimum amount o f evidence may be accepted by a civil court in the absence o f any rebuttal The civil court is neutral It simply gives decision on…

A.B. Sugars Limited, Punjab vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 299/CHANDI/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Dec 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Singla, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80ISection 92C

Gaurika Multitrade Private Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT, Mumbai-8, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1977/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member)

Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(23)Section 263

…eason for invoking revisionary power uls 263 of the Act as has been held by the Tribunal in the case of Mahatakshmi Liquor Promoters Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Income tax (2013) 29 taxmann com 70 Further in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. Addl. CIT (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Delhi) it was held that PCIT can regard the AO's order as erroneous on the ground that considering the circumstances of the case the AO should have made further enquiries and which he has failed to make before accepting the statements made by the assessee 83 For invoking provisions of sec.263 of the Act, there are twin conditions to be satisfied…

Sonal Sandeep Satav, Pune vs. PCIT, Pune-2, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 945/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Sarang GudhateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari

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

…es erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 11. In such a scenario wherein the assessment is completed without adequate enquiry/verification of the issue involved, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. Addl. CIT 99 ITR 375 (Del.) held that the assessment order is erroneous as also prejudicial to 18 ITA No.945/PUN/2024, AY 2018-19 the interest of the Revenue as it caused prejudice to the Revenue administration as emphasized by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Venktakrishna Rice Co. Vs. CIT 163 ITR 129 (Mad.). Therefore, we are of the view that the Ld. PC…

M/S Swift Vintrade Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. CIT, Kolkata-1I, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1032/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2024AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri A. Kundu, CIT, DR

Section 143Section 148Section 263

…2.3. The Ld. Pr. CIT placed reliance upon the following judicial pronouncements: i) Rampyari Devi Saraogi Vs. CIT 67 ITR 84 (SC), 5 Swift Vintrade Pvt. ltd., AY: 2009-10 ii) Tara Devi Agarwal Vs. CIT 88 ITR 323 (SC), iii) Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. Addl. CIT 99 ITR 375, 386 (Del.), iv) CIT Vs. Sophia finance Ltd. 205 ITR 98 (Del), v) CIT Vs. Active Traders P. Ltd. 214 ITR 583 (Cal), vi) CIT Vs. Nivedan Vanijya Niyojan Ltd. 263 ITR 623 (Cal), vii) CIT V. Bhagwati Jewels Ltd. 201 ITR 461 (Del.). 2.4. He was of the view that the Ld. AO has power to investigate the identity of the shareholders to satisfy that they e…

Etah Wine Traders, Kasganj vs. PCIT, Bareiily

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 117/LKW/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaetah Wine Traders V. Pcit, Bareilly C/O Kunwar Devendra Singh Aaykar Bhawan, Central Yadav, Laxmiganj, Kasganj, Revenue Building, Kamla Uttar Pradesh-207123. Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, Bareilly. Pan:Aaaae1483E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Vivek Agrawal, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Manu Chaurasia, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 18 10 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25 10 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Agrawal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manu Chaurasia, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…in 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 above two judgments 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 si…

Ganadhipati Construction Private Ltd, Patna vs. PCIT, Central, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

ITA 360/PAT/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Patna16 Oct 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 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 [(1195) 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 every…