How many judgments cite Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT?

543 judgments on BharatTax cite Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT (99 ITR 375), spanning 2009 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 263, Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 142(1), Section 144B, Section 148.

Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT

99 ITR 375High Court1975#115 most cited

What is Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT authority for?

An assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue if the Assessing Officer fails to make proper inquiries before accepting the assessee's statements or claims. The Commissioner can revise such an order under Section 263 without conducting further inquiries himself.

543

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 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 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

Ac Construction, Kolkata vs. ITO, Kolkata

In the result, Grounds No

ITA 374/KOL/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Aug 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 194CSection 40

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “एसएमसी’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH: KOLKATA "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी संजय शमा" "या"यक सद"य के सम" [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member &Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member] I.T.A. No. 374/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2007-08 AC Construction Vs. ITO, Ward-44(1), Kolkata (PAN: AAKFA 8508 K) Appellant / (अपीलाथ") Respondent / ( !यथ") Date of Hearing / सुनवाई 26.07.2023 क$ "त&थ Date of Pronouncement/ 22.08.2023 आदेश उ)घोषणा क$ "त&थ For the Appellant/ Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate "नधा"/रती क$ ओर से For the Respondent/ Shri Abhijit Ku…

Mumbai Postal Employees Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 17(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1051/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.1050 & 1051/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2015-16 & 2016-17) Mumbai Postal Employees Vs. Income Tax Officer, Co-Operative Credit Ward 17(2)(1) Society Limited, Gpo Room No. 115, 1 St Floor, Building, Fort, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To Mumbai – 400001 C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaajm0032G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Madhur Agarwal &For Respondent: Neena Jeph

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

…he following judicial pronouncement where in held that mere filing of an explanation was not sufficient if there is not further enquiries carried out: (i) Jeevan Investment & Finance (P) Ltd. 88 taxman.com 552 Bom) (ii) Gee Vee Enterprises V. Addl. CIT (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Del) (iii) Ambika Agro Supplies Vs. ITO Jalagon (2005) 95 ITD 326 (iv) Remeshchandra Maleram Varma Vs. DCIT (2002) 121 Taxman 29 (Ahd). (v) Mahalakshmi Ligor Promoters (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2013) 29 taxmann.com 74 and the assessing officer is directed to frame the assessment de novo after due verification. 5. During the course of appellate proceedin…

Mumbai Postal Employees Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 17(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1050/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Madhur Agarwal &For Respondent: Neena Jeph

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

Nahar Colours and Coatinhgs Private Limited, Udaipur vs. Principal Commissioner Ofincometax, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 140/JODH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur09 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 801ASection 80I

…263 includes the failure to make such an inquiry. The order becomes erroneous because such an inquiry has not been made and not because there is anything wrong with the order if all the facts stated therein are assumed to be correct. (M/s Gee Vee Enterprises 99 ITR 375 (Delhi High Court)[1995]) 3.4. Mere failure on the part of the Assessing Officer to make the necessary inquiries or to examine the claim made by the assessee in accordance with law, renders the resultant order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Nothing more is required to be established in such a case. If the 15 Nahar Colo…

Au Small Finance Bank Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 279/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Jhanwar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT

Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…We have also taken into consideration the case laws cited by the ld. AR of the assessee. The Bench meticulously pondered on the invocation of Section 263 of the Act by the ld. PCIT and felt that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s. Gee Vee Enterprises 99 ITR 375 held that the Assessing Officer is not only an adjudicator but also an investigator and failure of the AO to conduct the required inquiry and accepting the statement of the assessee 11 AU SMALL FINANCE BANK LTD . JAIPUR VS PCIT -1 , JAIPUR without due verification renders the orders erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.…

M/S Marathon India Ltd., Rajasthan vs. Smt. Pratima Kaushik, PCIT-1, Rajasthan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed with no order as to cost

ITA 235/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar Jain, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 3Section 338Section 80Section 801E

…e/allowable and the AO has allowed the same in the assessment proceedings which makes the order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. 5. Reliance has been placed on the following judicial pronouncements in this regard 1. In the case of M/s Gee Vee Enterprises 99 ITR 375 (Delhi High Court 1995]. It was held that the Assessing Officer (AO) is not only an adjudicator but also an investigator, and failure of the AO to conduct the required inquiring and accepting the statement of the assessee without due verification renders the order erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Absence of proper…

Ortem Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT-2, Kol, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 500/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2018-19 Ortem Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. Pcit - 2, Kolkata P-141, Kalindi Housing Estate, Vs. Kalindi Vatika, 4D, Block-B, Lake Town, Kolkata-700089. Pan: Aabco 2390 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri S. Datta, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Pcit, Kolkata-2 Dated 21.03.2023 Framed U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Order Of The Ld. Pcit Is Contrary To Law & The Facts Of The Appellant Case. 2. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Pcit Erred In Holding That Order Passed U/S 143(3) Dated 08-02- 2021 Is Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Revenue. 3. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Pcit Erred In Disallowing Employee Contribution Of Rs. 1,53,300/- & Employer Contribution Of Rs. 1,44,998/- Made Towards Provident Fund (Pf) & Employee State Insurance Corporation (Esic). 4. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Pcit Erred In Not Considering The Fact That Both Employee & Employer Contribution Aggregating Rs. 2,98,298/- Was Made Before The Due Date Of Filing Income Tax Return.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. Datta, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36Section 36(1)Section 43B

…case at hand would make such assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue in the light of law laid down by the Apex Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. 8. 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 or reasoning or of law or of fact on the face of it but also because the Assessing Officer has failed to make enquiries which are called for in the circumstances of the case and it is an order which simply acc…

Omm Shree Realcon Pvt. Ltd, Bhubaneswar vs. Pr.CIT-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 97/CTK/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & And Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2018-19 Om Shree Realcon Pvt Ltd., Om Shree Realcon Pvt Ltd., Vs. Pr. Cit- Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-1 Plot No.418, Forest Park, 8, Forest Park, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabco 3118 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Sarangi, Ca S.K.Sarangi, Ca Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. Cit (Osd) Pr. Cit (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 28 /0 06/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28 /0 /06/2023 O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Sarangi, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. CIT (OSD)

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 263Section 68

…f non-application of mind and failure to make proper enquiry (refer, inter alia, Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83/109 Taxman 66 (SC); Toyota Motor Corpn. v. CIT [2008] 306 ITR 52/173 Taxman 458 (SC); Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Delhi); and Rajalakshmi Mills Ltd. v. ITO [2009] 121 ITD 343 (Chd.) (SB)). So, however, the ld. CIT, the competent authority, has given a definite direction to the AO to frame fresh assessment, setting aside that made in the first instance, in terms of his directions, i.e., of the loan/s amount being assessable as deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) in…

M/S Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., E-8, Epip Riico Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Jaipur-2, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 260/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 30Section 44

…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. Addl. CIT &Ors. 1975 CTR (Del) 61 : (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, italicised in print, 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…

Mr Ashok Khimraj Jain, Nandubar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Nashik

The appeal of the appellant is ALLOWED

ITA 154/PUN/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S S Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.154/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Ashok Khimraj Jain, Vimal Emporium, Tilak Rd., Nandurbar – 425 412 Pan : Ahppj6362E . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Nashik . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Hari Krishan Revenue By : Shri J.P. Chandraker सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 26/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 26/05/2023 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; By The Present Appeal, The Assessee Assailed The Revisionary Order Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Nashik [For Short ‘Pcit’] Dt. 18/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short ‘The Act’], Which Ascended Out Of Assessment Order Dt. 17/11/2017 Passed U/S 143(3) By The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle Dhule [For Short ‘Ao’] For The Assessment Year [For Short ‘Ay’] 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri J.P. Chandraker

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69A

…due inquiry(ies), the first limb i.e. an assessment being erroneous fails therefore the very basis of jurisdiction of the Ld. PCIT u/s 263 of the Act. 9. Before parting we also note that, the Hon’ble lordship in ‘Gee Vee Enterprises Vs Addl. CIT’ reported in 99 ITR 375 (DHC) held that the Assessing Officer’s role in framing a regular assessment is that of an investigator as well as an adjudicator. An unless the Assessing Officer as an adjudicator decides a question or aspect and makes an assessment which is unsustainable in law, it cannot be corrected by the Commissioner in exercise of revisionary power. As an i…

Parackal Krishnakutty Prasad, Ernakulam vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kochi-1, Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 468/COCH/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Jun 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shriabyt.Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Kuriachan, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Prasanth V.K., CIT-DR

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

…nquiry under the circumstances was surely prudent and called for, if only to furnish an insight into 5 ParackalKrishnankutty Prasad v. Pr.CIT the dynamics of the business, and a reason/s for an almost zero inventory. In Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Del), it stands explained, with reference to judicial precedents, that the order of the AO becomes erroneous on a failure to make enquiry where the circumstances call for it. This is not because there is anything wrong in the order if all the facts stated therein are assumed to be correct. However, the AO is not only an adjudicator but also an in…

Barclays Merchant Bank ( Singapore ) Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (International Circle) Range-1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse stand dismissed

ITA 907/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Rajesh Meshram

Section 143(3)Section 263

…P a g e | 1 Barclays Merchant Bank (singapore) Ld. Vs. CIT (IT) range 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Barclays Merchant Bank Vs. Commissioner of Income (Singapore)Limited Tax (IT)Range-1 C/o SRBC and Associates B, Wing 17th Floor, Room LLP 14th Floor, The Ruby, No. 1704, Air India 29, Senapati Bapat Marg, Building, Nariman Point, Dadar West, Mumbai 400021 Mumbai – 400028 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AACCB0070E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Madhur Agarwal Respondent by : Rajesh Meshram…

Vishal Nagpal, Saharanpur vs. Pr.CIT, Muzaffarnagar

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3790/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263

…assessment under section 143(3), it is expected from the AO that he will make a detailed inquiry to find out correct income of the assessee and not blindly rely upon the facts placed by the assessee on their face value. ii. 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 canceling the assessment order of the Income Tax Officer. The Commissioner can regard the order as erroneous on the ground that it: the circumstances of the case the Income Tax Officer should have made further inquiries before accepting the s…

Arun Kumar Palawat, Jaipur vs. Pr CIT, Jaipur-1, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 144/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Bhatra (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT D/R

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 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 every…

DCIT, Corporate Circle- 1(1), Bhubaneswar vs. M/S. Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd., Bhubaneswar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 359/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita Nos.34 & 35/Ctk/2019 2019 Assessment Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014 14 & 2014-15 M/S. Grid Corporation Of M/S. Grid Corporation Of Vs. Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle -1(1), Orissa Ltd., Gridco House, Orissa Ltd., Gridco House, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Janpath, Bhubaneswar Janpath, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabcg 5398 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain & Shri Venugopal Rao, ARsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. CIT (OSD)

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

…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…

DCIT, Corporate Circle- 1(1), Bhubaneswar vs. M/S. Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd., Bhubaneswar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 358/CTK/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain & Shri Venugopal Rao, ARsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. CIT (OSD)

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

…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…

M/S. Grid Corporation of Orissa Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bhubanswar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 35/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain & Shri Venugopal Rao, ARsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. CIT (OSD)

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

…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…

M/S. Grid Corporation of Orissa Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bhubanswar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 34/CTK/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain & Shri Venugopal Rao, ARsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. CIT (OSD)

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

…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…

M/S. Grid Corporation of Orissa Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bhubanswar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 325/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain & Shri Venugopal Rao, ARsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. CIT (OSD)

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

…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…

M/S Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 324/CTK/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain & Shri Venugopal Rao, ARsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. CIT (OSD)

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

…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…