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

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

ITA 359/PAT/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Patna16 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

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…

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

ITA 358/PAT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Patna16 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

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…

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

ITA 357/PAT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna16 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

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…

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

ITA 356/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna16 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

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…

Asstt Commissioner of Income Tax - 4(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Deutsche Investments India Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are

ITA 3504/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR
Section 263

…case Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that no prejudice will be caused to the assessee by re examination by the Assessing Officer. This case law is not applicable on the facts here. The case law from Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises (99 ITR 375) is not applicable on the facts of this case. This case law was duly referred to in Hon'ble Delhi High Court decision in the case of ITO Vs. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. (343 ITR 329) and Hon'ble High Court has observed as under :- “It is in this context that the Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2000) 243…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - 4(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Deutsche Investments India Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the Reven

ITA 3503/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Niraj ShethFor Respondent: 14/10/2024
Section 263

…w is not applicable on the facts here. The case law from Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case the facts here. The case law from Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case the facts here. The case law from Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises (99 ITR 375) is not applicable on the facts of this of Gee Vee Enterprises (99 ITR 375) is not applicable on the facts of this of Gee Vee Enterprises (99 ITR 375) is not applicable on the facts of this case. This case law was d case. This case law was duly referred to in Hon'ble Delhi High Court uly referred to in Hon'ble Delhi High Court decision in the case…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - 4(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Deutsche Investments India Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the Reven

ITA 3502/MUM/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Niraj ShethFor Respondent: 14/10/2024
Section 263

…w is not applicable on the facts here. The case law from Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case the facts here. The case law from Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case the facts here. The case law from Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises (99 ITR 375) is not applicable on the facts of this of Gee Vee Enterprises (99 ITR 375) is not applicable on the facts of this of Gee Vee Enterprises (99 ITR 375) is not applicable on the facts of this case. This case law was d case. This case law was duly referred to in Hon'ble Delhi High Court uly referred to in Hon'ble Delhi High Court decision in the case…

Window Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT (Central) - 2, Kolkata

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

ITA 1060/KOL/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Sept 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Akkal Dudhewala, A.RFor Respondent: Subhendu Datta, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 32

…s set aside to this limited extent. The judicial pronouncements relied upon by the Ld. PCIT are as under: i.Commissioner of Income tax, Central -1 Kolkata Vs Maithan International 56 taxmann.com 283(2015) (Calcutta) ii.Gee Vee Enterprise vs. Addl. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Del) iii.Thalibai F. Jain vs. ITO 101 ITR 1, 8 (Kar) 5 Window Technologies Pvt. Ltd. AY: 2019-20 iv.Malabar Industrial Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83, 87-88 (SC) affirming the Hon'ble Kerala High Court’s decision in 198 ITR 611 v.Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 & Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal vs. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC) vi.C…

Sushila Bhaurao Deshmukh, Amravati vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 76/NAG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur20 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: ShriK.P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Salunke
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 54BSection 54E

…the provisions of law. An assessment order can be held as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue if in the opinion of the learned CIT the inquiry was not adequate or no inquiry at all has been made. In a landmark decision in the case of G.V. Enterprises, 99 ITR 375, theHon'ble Delhi High Court has held that "inadequacy of inquiry is a good reason for invoking the proceedings under section 263 of the Act." If the reasoning is lacking in an assessment order, then also the learned CIT can invoke the revisionary powers." 6. In view of the above and the factual and legal matrix, I am satisfied that the order pass…

Nrupal Nareshchandra Raja, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 839/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 263

…d. A.O is unsustainable in law. Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. wherein the Hon'ble Court after referring to judgments of Hon'ble High Court in the case of Addl. CIT v. Gee Vee Enterprise [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Delhi), Sunbean Auto Ltd. (supra), Malabar Industries held in favour of the assessee confirming the order of the Tribunal observing as follows:- 19. In the present case, the findings recorded by the Tribunal are correct as the CIT has not gone into and has not given any reason for observing that the order passed by the Assessing Officer was erro…

Shah Jitendrakumar Mafatlal HUF, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad vs. PCIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 645/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Sulabh Padshah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 151Section 263

…d. A.O is unsustainable in law. Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. wherein the Hon'ble Court after referring to judgments of Hon'ble High Court in the case of Addl. CIT v. Gee Vee Enterprise [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Delhi), Sunbean Auto Ltd. (supra), Malabar Industries held in favour of the assessee confirming the order of the Tribunal observing as follows:- 19. In the present case, the findings recorded by the Tribunal are correct as the CIT has not gone into and has not given any reason for observing that the order passed Shah Jitendrakumar Mafatlal HUF v…

Shri Hari & Co Owners, Kaithal vs. Pr. CIT, Chandigarh -1, Rohtak

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 403/CHANDI/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…. AO as it depicts non application of mind, arbitrary exercise of power rendering such AO order prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 19. We hold that Delhi High Court judgment in case reported in Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. Add. CIT and Ors reported in (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Del) is squarely applicable to the present case, wherein the word erroneous in section included cases where there has been a failure to make necessary inquiries. We also hold that madras High Court Judgment in case of K.A. Ramaswamy Chettiar another reported in (1996) 220 ITR 657 (Mad) wherein it has been held that when the Income Tax Officer is…

Shri Hari & Co Owners, Kaithal vs. Pr. CIT, Chandigarh -1, Rohtak

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 402/CHANDI/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…. AO as it depicts non application of mind, arbitrary exercise of power rendering such AO order prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 19. We hold that Delhi High Court judgment in case reported in Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. Add. CIT and Ors reported in (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Del) is squarely applicable to the present case, wherein the word erroneous in section included cases where there has been a failure to make necessary inquiries. We also hold that madras High Court Judgment in case of K.A. Ramaswamy Chettiar another reported in (1996) 220 ITR 657 (Mad) wherein it has been held that when the Income Tax Officer is…

Huhtamaki India Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax - 6, Mumbai

ITA 2668/MUM/2024[AY 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2024

Bench: Shriamarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeι.Τ.Α No.2668/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year : 2018-19) Huhtamaki India Limited A-802, Cresenzo, C-38/39 G Block, Brandra Kurla Complex Bandra (East), Mumbai Pan: Aaact0086E Appellant Vs Principal Commissioner Of Income- Tax-6, Mumbai 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mahrishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Tiwari Respondent By : Shrisolgy Jose T. Kottaram(Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing : 22/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/07/2024 Order Per Anikesh Banerjee, J.M: Instant Appeal Of The Assessee Is Preferred Against The Order Of Thelearned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Mumbai-6 (For Brevity, ‘Ld.Pcit') Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, ‘The Act'), For Assessment Year 2018-19, Date Of Order21.03.2024.The Impugned Order Was Emanated From The Order Of The National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi, (In Short, ‘The A.O.') Passed Under Section 143(3)Read With Section 144B Of The Act, Date Of Order19/04/2021. 2. The Assessee Has Taken Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: ShriSolgy Jose T. Kottaram(CIT DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 263

…he proceedings u/s.263. In this context the legal position regarding erroneous order being passed where even enquiries were conducted, have been summed up in the following case laws viz., (i) Gee Vee Enterprises v. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax [1975] 99 ITR 375 (DELHI), (ii) Commissioner of Income-tax-V v. Nagesh Knitwears (P.) Ltd [2012] 22 taxmann.com 309 (Delhi), and (iii) Income-tax Officer v. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. [2012] 20 taxmann.com 587 (Delhi). The Ld.AR further invited our attention in the assessment order and the notices under section 142 (1) of the Act where the Ld.AO asked the explanati…

Exotic Realtors and Developers, Chandigarh vs. Pr.CIT-1, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 189/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 253Section 263

…nquiry. 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 of evidence may be accepted by a civil court in the absence of any rebuttal. The civil court is neutral. It simply, gives decision o…

J vs. Industries Pvt. Ltd., Vadodaravs.the Pr. CIT, Vadodara-1, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 411/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43Section 49

…t of order being erroneous. It is also held that if the order is passed without application of mind, such order will fall under the category of erroneous order. • Delhi High Court in Gee Vee Enterprises v. Additional Commission of Income- Tax, Delhi-1, (1975) 99 ITR 375, 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 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 ba…

San Finance Corporation, Nagpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 40/NAG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur11 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 143(3)Section 263

…the provisions of law. An assessment order can be held as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue if in the opinion of the learned CIT the inquiry was not adequate or no inquiry at all has been made. 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." If the reasoning is lacking in an assessment order, then also the learned CIT can invoke the revisionary powers". 9. In view of the above and the factual and legal matrix, I am satisfied that the order pas…

Spark Mall and Parking Pvt. Ltd, Nagpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 33/NAG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur11 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…the provisions of law. An assessment order can be held as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue if in the opinion of the learned CIT the inquiry was not adequate or no inquiry at all has been made. 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." If the reasoning is lacking in an assessment order, then also the learned CIT can invoke the revisionary powers." 6. In view of the above and the factual and legal matrix, I am satisfied that the order pas…

Sajjad Ali, Chittorgarh vs. DCIT(Intl)- Jaipur, Jaipur

ITA 459/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Ojha (CIT-DR)
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 54

…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 every…

M/S.Sudchemie India P. Ltd, Ernakulam vs. The ACIT, Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 51/COCH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Radhesh Bhatt, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member and Shri Soundararajan K., Judicial Member ITA No. 51/Coch/21 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Sud-Chemie India Pvt. Ltd. Asst. CIT, Corporate Circle-1(2) Edayar Indl. Development Area I.S. Press Road Binanipuram, Aluva vs. Kochi 628018 Ernakulam 683502 [PAN: AAACU3342E] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Radhesh Bhatt, CA Respondent by: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 06.05.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 31.05.2024 O R D E R Per: Sanjay Arora, AM This Appeal by the Assessee is directed against…