Gita Devi Aggarwal v. CIT

82 ITR 824Supreme Court of India1971#1720 most cited

What is Gita Devi Aggarwal v. CIT authority for?

The Commissioner, while exercising revisional powers under Section 33B of the 1922 Act (analogous to Section 263 of the 1961 Act), must provide the assessee with an opportunity of being heard, even if a formal notice is not explicitly prescribed. Failure to adhere to these principles of natural justice vitiates the revisional order.

66

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Gita Devi Aggarwal v. CIT · CIT v. Electro House · 82 ITR 824 · Section 263 revision · Section 33B (1922 Act) · opportunity of being heard · principles of natural justice · notice vs opportunity · revisional jurisdiction · vitiates order · erroneous and prejudicial

Sections most often in play

Section 263Section 147Section 143(3)Section 148Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

Issues it is cited on

revision under section 263section 33malabar industrialsection 34erroneous and prejudicialshort term capital gainsection 263service of noticesection 26opportunity of being heardsection 11section 80

Judgments citing Gita Devi Aggarwal v. CIT

Aakriti Landcon P. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Principal CIT, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 433/JPR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: The Merit Of The Matter Which Has Been Put Up For Our Consideration.

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sayyat Nasir Ali (CIT)
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…round of lack of jurisdiction but on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. Reference in this regard may be illustratively made to the decisions of this Court in Gita Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1970] 76 ITR 496 and in CIT v. Electro House [1971] 82 ITR 824 (SC). Paragraph 4 of the decision in Electro House (supra) being illumination of the issue indicated above may be usefully reproduced hereunder: "This section unlike Section 34 does not prescribe any notice to be given. It only requires the Commissioner to give an opportunity to the assessee of being heard. The section does not speak of any notic…

Jessop & Co. Ltd., Kolkata vs. CIT, Kolkata-1, Kolkata

In the result, ITA No. 702/kol/14 is allowed for statistical purpose, while ITA

ITA 702/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Aug 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 702 & 1045/Kol/2014 Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10 M/S. Jessop & Co.. Ltd. -Vs.- C.I.T., Kolkata-1, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaacj 6969 N] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit(Dr)

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 17(1)Section 263

…that attempts were made by the CIT to serve notice on the assessee and this was evident from the record and it was not the intention of the CIT not to afford opportunity to the assessee. He placed reliance on the judicial pronouncement in CIT vs Electro House 82 ITR 824 (SC). He relied on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Renusagar Power Co.Ltd. Vs. CIT 234 ITR 782 (All). In the aforesaid case, the Assessee challenged an order passed under s. 263 of the Act as a nullity, 6 Jessop & Co.LTd. A.Yrs.2008-09 & .2009-10 inasmuch as that was made by the CIT without giving an opportunity of being he…

Good Morning, Mumbai vs. CIT 15, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2533/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2533/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Good Morning Cit-15, बनाम/ Shivtirth No. 2, E Wing, 124, Matru Mandir, 1St Floor, Tardeo Road, 4/6 Bhulabhai Desai Road, Haji Ali, Vs. Mumbai-400 026 Mumbai-400 007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aadfp 2489 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vidisha Kalra सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 21.6.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 24.6.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Agitating The Revision Of Its Assessment U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) Dated 16.12.2011 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax-15, Mumbai (‘Cit’ For Short) Vide His Order U/S. 263 Of The Act Dated 24.3.2014 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2009-10. 2. None Appeared For & On Behalf Of The Assessee When Its’ Appeal Was Called Out For Hearing. In Fact, We Observe No Appearance By The Assessee-Appellant On Any Date Of Hearing Despite Service Of Notices Of Hearing Per Registered Post. There Is Also No Adjournment Application On Record & Neither Has The Assessee, On The Basis Of The Material On Record, Appointed/Authorized Any Counsel To Represent Its’ Case Before The 2 Good Morning Vs. Cit Tribunal. The Appeal Contests The Order Of Revision, Which Is To Be Taken Up On A Priority Basis In-As-Much As It Has Implication On Quantum Assessment. It Was, Accordingly, Considered Proper To Proceed To Hear This Appeal Ex Parte The Assessee & Decide The Same On Merits After Hearing The Party Before Us & Considering The Material On Record.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vidisha Kalra
Section 143(3)Section 263

…riate enquiry in line with the requirement given in CASS and allowing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.’ Referring inter alia to the decisions in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC); CIT vs. Electro House [1971] 82 ITR 824 (SC); Green World Corporation vs. ITO [2006] 285 ITR 118 (HP); Ashok Leyland Ltd. vs. CIT [2003] 260 ITR 599 (Mad); CIT vs. Emery Stone Manufacturing Co. [1995] 213 ITR 843 (Raj); and Dawjee Dadabhoy and Co. vs. S. P. Jain [1957] 31 ITR 872 (Cal). 3 Good Morning vs. CIT 4. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. That non-ap…

Khoday Eshwarsa & Sons, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1117/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri. Sunil Kumar Yadav

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sukumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sibichen K. Mathew, CIT -III
Section 263

…notice before commencing proceedings under s. 263 of the Act. What is required is adherence to the principles of natural justice by granting to the assessee an opportunity of being heard before passing an order under s. 263. [See CIT vs. Electro House (1971) 82 ITR 824(SC)]. ITA No.1117/Bang/2010 & ITA.614/Bang/2010 Page - 19 (vii) If the AO acts in accordance with law his order cannot be termed as erroneous by the CIT, simply because according to him the order should have been written "more elaborately". Recourse cannot be taken to s. 263 to substitute the view of the AO with that of the CIT. [See CIT vs. Gab…

CIT vs. M/S Escorts Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA - 14 / 1999HC Delhi01 Feb 2011
For Appellant: Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. R.M. Mehta, Advocate
Section 260ASection 263Section 80

…ing and/or modifying the order was in consonance with the power conferred on him under section 263 of the Act. In support of her submissions, the learned counsel relied upon the following judgments :- 2011:DHC:591-DB ITA 14/1999 CIT Vs. Electro House 82 ITR 824 (SC), 827 and CIT vs Panna Devi Saraogi (1970) 78 ITR 728 (Cal.) at pages 739-40. 5. As against this, Mr. Mehta submitted that the respondent/assessee had been carrying out the aforementioned transactions for past several years including in the assessment year which preceded the relevant assessment year. The department had not impugned the…

The Commissioner of Income Tax-Xiii vs. Shri Ashish Rajpal

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/485/2008HC Delhi14 May 2009
For Appellant: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.B B Bhagat with Mr Amit Bhagat & Mr Pulkit
Section 131Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 260ASection 271(1)(c)

…ith Section 148 of the Act, where a notice must necessarily precede initiation of proceedings under the Act. In support of his submission, reliance was placed on the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT, West Bengal II vs Electro House (1971) 82 ITR 824 and Gita Devi Aggarwal vs CIT, West Bengal & Ors. (1970) 76 ITR 496 (SC). He further submitted that in view of the fact that there is no requirement of a notice being issued by the Commissioner in order to 2009:DHC:2080-DB initiate proceeding under Section 263 of the Act. All that an assessee can demand in terms of the said provision is a…