Kamal Kumar Gupta v. Pr. CIT

142 TTJ 9Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2011#10165 most cited

What is Kamal Kumar Gupta v. Pr. CIT authority for?

An Assessing Officer's order under Section 263 is not justified if the AO made an inquiry, even if it was insufficient, rather than a complete lack of inquiry.

10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Kamal Kumar Gupta · Section 263 · insufficient enquiry · lack of inquiry · revision order · Pr. CIT · Assessing Officer · trade creditors · agriculturalist · opportunity of being heard

Sections most often in play

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 2(14)Section 263Section 48Section 54

Issues it is cited on

public servantmalabar industrialsection 119complete scrutinyerroneous and prejudicialsection 263section 26scrutiny assessmentsection 11section 142(1)opportunity of being heardperson

Judgments citing Kamal Kumar Gupta v. Pr. CIT

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

…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 ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 459/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 cuke Sajjad Ali DCIT Vs. S/o Tehir Ali, General Merchant, (Intl.)- Jaipur Sadar Bazar, Kapasan, Chittorgarh LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ASOPA 8295 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Adv. jktLo dh vksj…

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

…d v/s Add. PR. CIT 94 TTJ 1036(Del) Also refer Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v/s PR. CIT 159 CTR(1)(SC), PR. CIT v/s Rayn Silk Mills 221 ITR 155(Guj.) 16 Shri Arun Kumar Palawat, Jaipur. Same view has been expressed in the case of Kamal Kumar Gupta v/s Pr. CIT 142 TTJ 9(Jp) wherein it has been held that “assessee was asked by the AO to file the details of trade creditors which are shown in the name of agriculturalist. In the reply, assessee filed written submission enclosing the list of creditors. Thus, the AO made the inquiry and it is not a case of lack of inquiry but can be case of insufficient enquiry. Pr. CIT…

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

…M/S. Provimi Animal Nutrition India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pr.CIT (2021) 187 ITD 0214 (Bangalore-Trib),(2021) 85 ITR (Trib) 0009 (Bangalore) (SN) 4. Tata Hitachi Construction Machinery Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2019) 56 CCH 0151 BangTrib 5. Kamal Kumar Gupta v/s Pr. CIT 142 TTJ 9(Jp) 6. Ritesh Suhalka V/s Pr. CIT Udaipur in ITA No. 383/Jodh/2019 dt. 21.12.2020 7. Nalco Company vs CIT 200 DTR 275 (Pune-C) ITA No.1217/Kol/2017 dt. 05.02.2021 8. CIT v/s Jain Construction 257 CTR 336(Raj.) 9. CIT V/s Girdhari Lal 258 ITR 331(Raj.) 10. CIT vs. Deepak Real Estate Developers (I)(P) Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 0377 (Raj) 11. Baberwad Shiks…

Shri Radha Govind Lashkari, Jaipur vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 32/JPR/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Apr 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) and Shri R.K. Bhatra, (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Savita Bundas, (CIT D/R)
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…289 ITR 226(Gau.). Also refer Saw Pipes Ltd v/s Add. PR. CIT 94 TTJ 1036 (Del), Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v/s PR. CIT 159 CTR(1)(SC), PR. CIT v/s Rayn Silk Mills 221 ITR 155(Guj.). Same view has been expressed in the case of Kamal Kumar Gupta v/s Pr. CIT 142 TTJ 9(Jp) wherein it has been held that “assessee was asked by the AO to file the details of trade creditors which are shown in the name of agriculturalist. In the reply, assessee filed written submission enclosing the list of creditors. Thus, the AO made the inquiry and it is not a case of lack of inquiry but can be case of insufficient enquiry. Pr. CIT…

Ashutosh Bhargava, Jaipur vs. Pr.CIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 20/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Jan 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271BSection 44ASection 54E

…R 226(Gau.) also refer, Saw Pipes Ltd v/s Add. PR. CIT 94 TTJ 1036(Del) Also refer Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v/s PR. CIT 159 CTR(1)(SC), PR. CIT v/s Rayn Silk Mills 221 ITR 155(Guj.) Same view has been expressed in the case of Kamal Kumar Gupta v/s Pr. CIT 142 TTJ 9(Jp) wherein it has been held that “assessee was asked by the AO to file the details of trade creditors which are shown in the name of agriculturalist. In the reply, assessee filed written submission enclosing the list of creditors. Thus, the AO made the inquiry and it is not a case of lack of inquiry but can be case of insufficient enquiry. Pr. CIT…

Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Jaipur vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, all these three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 37/JPR/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 35 To 37/Jp/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2012-13 Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Cuke Pr.Cit-2, Vs. Limited, Jaipur. Village- Palsana Main Market, Palsana, Dist.- Sikar- 332402 (Raj) Pan No.: Aabap 8390 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-2, Jaipur All Dated 31/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2010-11 To 2012-13. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “A”, JAIPUR Jh lanhi x®lkÃa] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 35 to 37/JP/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 to 2012-13 Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti cuke Pr.CIT-2, Vs. Limited, Jaipur. Village- palsana Main Market, Palsana, Dist.- Sikar- 332402 (Raj) PAN No.: AABAP 8390 A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri B.K.…

Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Palasana vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, all these three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 36/JPR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 35 To 37/Jp/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2012-13 Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Cuke Pr.Cit-2, Vs. Limited, Jaipur. Village- Palsana Main Market, Palsana, Dist.- Sikar- 332402 (Raj) Pan No.: Aabap 8390 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-2, Jaipur All Dated 31/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2010-11 To 2012-13. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “A”, JAIPUR Jh lanhi x®lkÃa] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 35 to 37/JP/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 to 2012-13 Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti cuke Pr.CIT-2, Vs. Limited, Jaipur. Village- palsana Main Market, Palsana, Dist.- Sikar- 332402 (Raj) PAN No.: AABAP 8390 A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri B.K.…

Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Palsana vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, all these three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 35/JPR/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 35 To 37/Jp/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2012-13 Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Cuke Pr.Cit-2, Vs. Limited, Jaipur. Village- Palsana Main Market, Palsana, Dist.- Sikar- 332402 (Raj) Pan No.: Aabap 8390 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-2, Jaipur All Dated 31/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2010-11 To 2012-13. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “A”, JAIPUR Jh lanhi x®lkÃa] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 35 to 37/JP/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 to 2012-13 Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti cuke Pr.CIT-2, Vs. Limited, Jaipur. Village- palsana Main Market, Palsana, Dist.- Sikar- 332402 (Raj) PAN No.: AABAP 8390 A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri B.K.…

Hi-Rock Construction Co., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 32, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4327/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Hi Rock Construction Co. Pr. Cit -32 C-11, 2Nd Floor, 903, A, Gurukul Tower, Cst No. 890, J. S. Road, Dahisar (W), Vs. Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Mumbai. Bandra Kurla Complex, Pan: Aaffh6403B Mumbai. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi with Shri Shubham Rathi (AR)For Respondent: Shri B. Srinivas (CIT-DR)
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s Hi Rock Construction Co. Pr. CIT -32 C-11, 2nd Floor, 903, A, Gurukul Tower, CST No. 890, J. S. Road, Dahisar (W), Vs. Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Mumbai. Bandra Kurla Complex, PAN: AAFFH6403B Mumbai. Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri Vipul Joshi with Shri Shubham Rathi (AR) Respondent by : Shri B. Srinivas (CIT-DR) Date of Hearing : 13.12.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 18.12.2019 ORDERUNDER SECTION 254(1)OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This appe…

N. J. Eco-Build Pvt. Ltd, Surat vs. Pr. CIT-1, . Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 221/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.221/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S.N.J.Eco-Build Pvt Ltd., V The Principal Commissioner S-42, Belgium Square, Opp.Laxmi S Of Income Tax, Surat-1. Vilas Bank. Delhi Gate, Ring Road, . Surat. [Pan: Aaecn 1584 H] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Suresh K.Kabra – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Shri Sreenivas T.Bidari – Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 09.12.2019 उ"घोषणाक"तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 13.12.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: 1. This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Surat-1, Dated 25.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Pr.Cit U/S.263 Of The Act.

Section 143(3)Section 263

…ents which are reproduced as below: Sr Particulars No l REGENCY PARK PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SERVICES PVT LTD VS CIT ................................ 130 TTJ 669 (DELHI-T) 2 SHREE SALASAR OVERSEAS P LTD VS CIT 144 TTJ 41 (JAIPUR-T) 3 KAMAL KUMAR GUPTA VS CIT ....142 TTJ 9 (JAIPUR-T) 4 CIT VS SUNBEAM AUTO LTD .227 CTR 133 (DELHI-HC) 5 HITENDRA A NANAVATI VS CIT ..135 TTJ 17 (AHD-T) 6 NARAIN SINGLA VS PCIT ................. 156 ITD 275 (CHD-T) Page 6 of 16 N.J.ECO-BUILD PVT LTD. Vs. Pr.CIT, Surat -1/ITA No.221/SRT/2019 for A.Y. 2014-15 7 SMT PRAGNABEN VINODBHAI PAREKH VS PCIT ITA/12 76/AHD/2 017 & OTHER 3 CASES D…

Kamal Kumar Gupta v. Pr. CIT (142 TTJ 9) — Cited in 10 Judgments | BharatTax