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

Sureshbhai Balubhai Asodariya, Surat vs. Pr. CIT (Central)Circle, Surat

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 64/SRT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 254(1)Section 263

…nalben S. Parikh 215 ITR 0081 (Guj) (10) Moil Ltd. Vs CIT 396 ITR 244 (Bom) (11) CIT Vs Nirav Modi 390 ITR 292 (Bom) (12) CIT Vs Gabriel India Ltd 203 ITR 108 (Bom) (13) ITO Vs DG Housing Projects Ltd. 343 ITR 329 (Del) (14) Gee Vee Enterprises Vs ACIT (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Delhi) (15) CIT Vs Vikas Polymers 341 ITR 537 (Delhi) (16) CIT Vs Anilkumar Sharma 335 ITR 83 (Delhi) (17) CIT Vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2010) 189 Taxman 436 (Delhi) (18) CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2002) 123 Taxman 433 (Delhi) (19) PCIT Vs Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 398 ITR 0008 (Delhi) (20) CIT Vs Jain Construction Co. 257 CT…

Komal Indstries Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 99/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.99/Srt/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Komal Industries Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income B-904, International Commerce Tax-1, Aaykar Bhawan, Nr. Majura Centre, Ring Road, Near Gate, Opp New Civil Hospital, Kadiwala School, Surat–395002. Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadck6228Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By None (Written Submissions) राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing 05/01/2023 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 23/01/2023

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44ASection 56(2)(viib)

…articular contention/issue without any enquiry or evidence whatsoever, the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue." The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. Additional Commission of Income-Tax, Delhi-l, (1975) 99 ITR 375, held that "the position and function of the Income-tax ITA No.99/SRT/2022/AY.2017-18 Komal Industries Pvt. Ltd. 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 giv…

Raj Abhishek Corporation, Surat vs. Pr. CIT-1, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 117/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.117/Srt/2022 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Raj Abhishek Corporation Principal Commissioner Of Income 501,Kohinoortextiles Market, Tax, Surat-1, Room No.123, Aaykar Vs. Ring Road, Surat-395002 Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat—395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aajfr 6297 D (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ketan Jagirdar, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit-D.R

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Jagirdar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80Section 80I

…enquiry. 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. 12. Delhi High Court in Gee Vee Enterprises v. Additional Commission of Income-Tax, Delhi-I, (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…

Monika Mondal, Kolkata vs. PCIT, Asansol

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 198/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 198/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-2018

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 270A

…ITA No. 198/KOL/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Monika Mondal IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ) & Shri Girish Agrawal, Accountant Member I.T.A. No. 198/KOL/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Monika Mondal,......................................Appellant C/o. RSVPC & Company, 41A, A.J.C. Bose Road, Diamond Prestige Nirman, 6th Floor, Suite no. 613, Kolkata-700017 [PAN: AIHPM6528N ] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner of Income Tax,....Respondent Asansol, Aayakar Bhawan, 116, Vivekananda Sarani, Kanyapur, Asansol-713341, West Bengal Appearances by: Shr…

M/S. Pyrotech Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur vs. Pr. CIT, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3/JODH/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur10 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)Section 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 3/Jodh/21 (ASSESSMENT YEAR- 2017-18 ) Pyrotech Electronics (P) Ltd Vs The Pr. CIT O.F. 16-A, Road No. 3, M.I.A. Udaipur Madri, Udaipur (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN NO. AABCP 2186 Q Assessee By Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Advocate Revenue By Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain- CIT-DR Date of hearing 02/11/2022 Date of 10 /01/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM The assessee has filed an appeal against the order of the ld. Pr,CIT, Udaipur for the assess…

A.A. Motiwala Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT- 4, Mumbai

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

ITA 1363/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Basakaran & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalm/S. A.A. Motiwala Jewellers Vs. Prin. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., 31, Kakad Palace, Income Tax-4, Room Shop No.1, Guru Nanak Road, No.629, 6Th Floor, Bandra (West), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Mumbai – 400 050 Road, Mumbai. Pan Aakca6359B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Ms. Mamta Bansal, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…assed by the Assessing Officer without application of mind is susceptible to revision proceedings under section 263 of the Act. In support of this proposition, learned DR placed reliance on the following case laws : a) Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Addl CIT (1975)(99 ITR 375)(Del) b) Jeevan Investment & Finance (P) Ltd. (2017) 88 taxmann.com 552 4 c) CIT vs. Toyoto Moror Corpn. (2008)(174 Taxman 395)(Del) d) CIT vs. Ballarpur Industries Ltd (2017)(85 taxmann.com 10)(Bom) e) Malabar Industrial Co Ltd vs. CIT (2000)(109 Taxman 66)(SC) f) CIT vs. Namdari Seeds (2011)(16 taxmann.com 9)(Kar) 7. In the rejoinder, the Ld A…

Atul Kumar Anchalia, Jaora vs. PCIT-1, Indore

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 63/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore03 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri B.M. Biyani (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Dafaria, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 263

…simply accepted the submissions of the assessee without making any proper enquiry while passing the assessment order and also allowed the claim of exemption u/s. 2(14) on sale of land. As held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises 99 ITR 375 (Delhi) wherein it has been held “ the Income-tax Officer is not only an adjudicator but also an investigator. He cannot remain passive in the face of a return which is apparently in order but calls for further inquiry. 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 provok…

Poonam Agarwal, Pune vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax -4, Pune

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 185/PUN/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkheFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263

…hat such mere filing of such documentary evidence hardly amounts to the Assessing Officer having carried-out adequate inquiry(ies) once he was performing the twin roles of investigator as well as adjudicator as held in Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 [Del.] as well as CIT vs. Godavaridevi Saraf [1978] 113 ITR 589 [Bom.]. Hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in 18 ITA.No.185/PUN./2021 Mrs. Poonam Agarwal, Pune. Malabar Industrial & Co. Ltd., vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 3 (SC) has settled the law long back that Assessing Officer’s action not making such enquiries during the course of scrutiny indee…

Bhavendra Hasmukhlal Patadia. Legal Heir of Hasmukhlal Patadia., Cuttack vs. ITO Ward-!(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 125/CTK/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack26 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.125/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2015-2016) Bhavendra Hasmukhlal Patadia, Vs Ito, Ward-1(1), Cuttack Legal Heir Of Hasmukhlal Patadia, Nayabazar, Chauliaganj, Cuttack-753004 Pan No. :Adapp 6256 G (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Deepak Shah, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Pr.Cit, Cuttack, Passed In Itba/Com/F/17/2019-20/1026790827(1), Dated 19.03.2020, For The Assessment Year 2015-2016. Head On The Question Of Condonation Of Delay 2. On Perusal Of The Appeal Record, It Is Found That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 784 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Dated 11.07.2022 Along With Affidavit Stating Therein That Due To Continuous Lockdown On Account Of Spread Of Covid-19, The Assessee Could Not File The Present Appeal In Time, Therefore, He Prayed That Delay Of 784 Days In Filing The Present Appeal May Kindly Be Condoned. On The Other Hand, Ld. Cit-Dr Did Not Object To The Above Submission Of The Ld. Ar. Considering The Above, We Condone

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

…ithout application of mind is non-est. The view taken by the AO. was not plausible in law. It was further held that the AO. in the given facts, should have done complete and proper enquiry. ix.) The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises (99 ITR 375) held as under: "The reason is that it is not the Income-tax Officer but a superior officer like the Commissioner who is exercising a revisional jurisdiction suo motu there under. The superior officer could be trusted with a larger power. The only requirement for the exercise of this power is that the Commissioner should consider that the order pa…

Mylan Pharmaceuticals Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO Ward-16(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 122/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Mylan Pharmaceuticals Vs. Ito,Ward-16(3) Private Limited I.T.Towers, Ac Guards Plot No.564/A/22, Masab Tank Road No.92 Hyderabad-500 004 Jubillee Hills, Hyderabad Telangana-500 096

For Appellant: Shri P.V.S.S.Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya,CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)

…oking jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the I.T.Act. He also relied on the following decisions i. Smt.Taradevi Aggarwal vs. CIT reported in 88 ITR 323(SC) ii. Smt.Rampyari Devi Sargoi vs Cit reported in 67 ITR 84 (SC) iii. Gee Vee Enterpirses Ltd. vs ACIT reported in 99 ITR 375 (Delhi.HC) iv. Radiant Life Care Mumbai Pvt.Ltd vs. PCIT in ITA No.895 &896/Mum/2021, dated 31.02.2022(Mum.Trib) 13. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the AO and ld.PCIT and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. We find the AO in…

M/S. C & E Ltd., Kolkata vs. Principal CIT - 4, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 636/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(2)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 80I

…Agarwal Vs. CIT(1973) 88 ITR 323 (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 in 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 o…

Swaran Financial Pvt Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT-2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 192/KOL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz)& Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…case. Accordingly, it is held that the assessment order is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial tothe interest of the revenue. 3 AY: 2016-17 Swaran Financial Pvt. Ltd. 5. 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 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 ac…

Chandi Filling Station, Cuttack vs. Principal CIT-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 10/CTK/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack13 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year: 2017-18 Chandi Chandi Filling Filling Station, Station, Vs. Pr. Cit-1, Manguli, Cuttack Manguli, Cuttack Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aacfc 8350 K (Appellant) ) .. ( Respondent Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 263Section 40

…reading of section 263 of the Act reveals that the CIT can make inquiry on his own if he deems so necessary and can also direct the A.O. to conduct inquiries. This very question was answered by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee enterprises (99 ITR 375) as under: "The question would naturally arise whether the firm was formed merely for the purpose of getting a tax advantage. Shri Sharma argued that there is nothing wrong if a legitimate advantage is sought by these means. But it was precisely for that reason that the Income-tax Officer had to be satisfied that the firm had existed in the previo…

M/S. S vs. Constructions, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 271/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri G. Sathyanarayana, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(2)

…re, we answer the question posed for our answer in the negative and against the assessee. Both appeals are allowed. Parties to bear their respective cost.” 10. We also notice that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises v .ACIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Del) has held as under – Page 12 of 13 “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 d…

Kalyanrao Vasantrao Kale HUF, Phandharpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax -4, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 184/PUN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Bare
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263

…ngs that the A.O failed to make proper enquiries and verification with regards to the facts of the case making the assessment order erroneous and so as to be prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. Addl. CIT 1975 CTR (Del) 61 : (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Del), CIT Vs. South India shipping Corpn. Ltd. 1998) 147 CTR (Mad) 433 : (1998) 233 ITR 546 (Mad) CIT Vs. M.M. Khambhatwala (1992) 198 ITR 144 (Guj) and CIT Vs. Bhagwan Das (2004) 191 CTR 531 : (2005) 272 ITR 367 (All). 7. We have perused the assessment order as well as the order of the ld. Pr. CIT. We find that in the assessment order, the ld. A…

Sh. Gurdeep Singh, Sirmour vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh-1

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 453/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: The Appeal Is Finally Disposed Off.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Goyal, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Vivek Nangia, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

…help. Addressing the same, it was submitted, that reliance placed by the ld. PCIT on decisions of the Delhi High Court in the case of DG Housing Projects Ltd. (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Delhi) and Gee Vee Enterprises Vs Additional Commissioner of Income-tax (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Delhi). Addressing the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. (supra) it was submitted that the said decision was infact in favour of the assessee as in the facts of the said decision, the issue for consideration before the Court was the valuation of a property and it was held that it is a matter of o…

Puneet Jain, Ghaziabad vs. Pr.CIT, Ghaziabad

ITA 1107/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N.K. Billaiya & Sh. Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2011-12 Puneet Jain Pr. Cit L.M. Agarwal & Co. (Ca) Ka- Vs Ghaziabad 32, Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad Pan No.Aeapj7349M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 271Section 44Section 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 Puneet Jain Pr. CIT L.M. Agarwal & co. (CA) KA- Vs Ghaziabad 32, Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad PAN No.AEAPJ7349M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant Sh. L. M. Aggarwal, CA Sh. Deepanshu Aggarwal, CA Respondent Sh. M. Baranwal, CIT DR Date of hearing: 21/11/2022 Date of Pronouncement: 23/11/2022 ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM: This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the Pr. CIT, Ghaziabad dated 18.03.2020 framed u/s. 263 of the Act.…

Samir Yogendrabhai Parikh, Na

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 102/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) Samir Yogendrabhai Parikh. The Pr.Cit, Alka Society, Chhapara Road, Valsad. Vs. Dist.-Navsari-396445, Gujarat. Pan No. Abgpp 6727 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263

…ot bother even to examine the same and therefore, the assessment order is erroneous in so far as it is not based on proper appreciation of facts. To support his submission, the ld. CIT-DR supported the following case laws: (i) Gee Vee Enterprises Vs Addl. CIT 99 ITR 375. (ii) Ramesh Kumar ITA No. 1982/Del/2018 13. The ld CIT-DR for the revenue prayed to uphold the order of ld Pr.CIT by dismissing the appeal of assessee. 16 Samir Yogendrabhai Parikh Vs. Pr.CIT 14. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the orders of lower authorities carefully. We have also deliberated upon the ca…

M/S. Embassy Property Developments Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, (Central), Bangalore

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

ITA 445/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Nov 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadri, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 17Section 2(22)(e)Section 263Section 37

…cer 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 Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 375], "it is his duty to ascertain the truth of the facts stated in the return when the circumstances of the case are such as to provoke an inquiry. It is, therefore, obvious that when the circumstances are not such as to provoke an inquiry, he need not put every proposition to the test and probe everything stated in the income tax return. In a way, h…

Sherawali Coal Carrier (P) Ltd, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 441/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri M. Baranwal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)

…uiry. 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. Delhi High Court in Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Additional Commission of Income-Tax, Delhi-I & Ors.,(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 b…