PR. CIT v. Trustees Anupam Charitable Trust

167 ITR 129High Court1987#4458 most cited

What is PR. CIT v. Trustees Anupam Charitable Trust authority for?

For the Commissioner to invoke revision powers under Section 263, the Assessing Officer's order must contain an actual error of fact or law, not a possibility or guesswork. The Commissioner must clearly identify the specific income that has escaped assessment.

26

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

PR. CIT v. Trustees Anupam Charitable Trust · section 263 · revisionary power · erroneous order · prejudicial to revenue · error of fact or law · guesswork · possibility

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 263Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 145A(b)Section 148Section 151Section 56(2)(viii)

Issues it is cited on

section 141section 282a(1)section 194lasection 145a(b)section 145bsection 44afsection 45(5)section 57(iv)section 56(2)(viii)section 262trade creditorssection 10(37)

Judgments citing PR. CIT v. Trustees Anupam Charitable Trust

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)

…he case of CIT v. Hindustan Marketing & Advertising Co. Ltd. [2010] 46 DTR (Del.) 109. The attention is drawn towards the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of PR. CIT v. Trustees Anupam Charitable Trust [1987] 65 CTR (Raj.) 30 : [1987] 167 ITR 129 (Raj.) Thus it is clear that Assessing Officer has made enquiry but sufficiency of enquiry can be depend upon from person to person. The AO cannot remain passive in the face of a return which is apparently in order but calls for further enquiry. It is the duty of the AO to ascertain the truth of the facts stated in the return when the circumstan…

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)

…he case of CIT v. Hindustan Marketing & Advertising Co. Ltd. [2010] 46 DTR (Del.) 109. The attention is drawn towards the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of PR. CIT v. Trustees Anupam Charitable Trust [1987] 65 CTR (Raj.) 30 : [1987] 167 ITR 129 (Raj.) Thus it is clear that Assessing Officer has made enquiry but sufficiency of enquiry can be depend upon from person to person. The AO cannot remain passive in the face of a return which is apparently in order but calls for further enquiry. It is the duty of the AO to ascertain the truth of the facts stated in the return when the circumstan…

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)

…he case of CIT v. Hindustan Marketing & Advertising Co. Ltd. [2010] 46 DTR (Del.) 109. The attention is drawn towards the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of PR. CIT v. Trustees Anupam Charitable Trust [1987] 65 CTR (Raj.) 30 : [1987] 167 ITR 129 (Raj.) Thus it is clear that Assessing Officer has made enquiry but sufficiency of enquiry can be depend upon from person to person. The AO cannot remain passive in the face of a return which is apparently in order but calls for further enquiry. It is the duty of the AO to ascertain the truth of the facts stated in the return when the circumstan…

S.A.Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 32, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 2419/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2419/Mum/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10) बनधम/ M/S. S. A. Enterprises Pr. Cit-32 Mumbai Bunglow No.70/74, Vs. Sheyas Goral Link Road, Near Gorai Bridge Bus Stop, Borivali (W), Mumbai-400092. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abafs8654B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal Revenue By: Shri Laxmi Vara Prasad Gude (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/07/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/09/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 27.03.2019 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-32, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009-10 In Which The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-32 Has Invoked The Provisions U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “The Ground Or Grounds Of Appeal Are Without Prejudice To One Another. 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Id. Pr. Cit-32, Mumbai Erred In Holding That The Assessment Order Dated 22-12- 2016 Passed U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147 By The Asst. Cit, 32(3), Mumbai Is Erroneous In So Far As It Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue By Invoking The Provisions Of Section 263 Because In His Opinion, The Additions Of Rs.1,05,16,040/- & Rs.3,15,482/- Are Made U/S.68 & 69C Respectively Ought To Have Not Been Set Off Against The Loss Incurred During The Year & Thereby Further Erred In Setting Aside The Assessment Order & Directing The Ao To Complete The Assessment Accordingly

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Laxmi Vara Prasad Gude
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…which was reduced from the loss. Since, the AO applied the mind, therefore, the present case nowhere seems within the provisions of Section 263 of the Act in view of the decision of Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT Vs. Trustees of Anupam Charitable Trust (167 ITR 129) (Raj). The order cannot be termed as erroneous unless it is not in accordance with law or is the prejudicial to the interest of the revenue which is to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the AO, when an AO adopts one of the courses permissible in law and it results in loss of the revenue or where two views are possible and…

Axcel Global Services, Mumbai vs. CIT 13, Mumbai

In the result, Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2446/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Cn Prasad & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal: (A.Y : 2009-10) M/S Axcel Global Services Vs. The Cit 13 Prabhat Palace, Behind Laxmi Bhawan Aayakar Bhavan Lajpatrai Road, Vile Parle West M.K.Marg Mumbai – 400 056 New Marine Lines Pan : Aaofa1550D Mumbai – 400 056 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri AV SondeFor Respondent: Shri RP Meena
Section 10ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…uiries and therefore the Ld. CIT cannot revise the assessment order unless he comes to conclusion that there is an error in the assessment order. For this proposition he places reliance on the following decisions. (a) CIT Vs. Trustees Anupam Charitable Trust [167 ITR 129] (Raj.) (b) CIT Vs. Goyal Private Family Specific Trust [171 ITR 698] (All.) (c) CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd. [203 ITR 108] (Bom.) 6. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee further placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gabriel India Ltd Vs. CIT [203 ITR 108] submits that the Ld. Commissioner cannot initiate pro…

Chandan M Parmar, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 11(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4601/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal (AR)For Respondent: Shri Subhlachan Ram & Ms
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2Section 2(14)Section 253Section 263Section 43(5)Section 68

…sought and cryptic, a better view could have been taken on the facts and evidence or that there was a suspicious, all facts are not revealed, the Commissioner interference would not be justified. Further, in case of CIT vs. Trustees of Anupam Charitable Trust 167 ITR 129 (Raj.) the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court held: “That the error envisage by section 263 is not one which depend on possibility of guess work, but should be actually an error either on fact or on law.” The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. Ashish Rajpal [2009] 320 ITR 674 (Delhi) (HC), and further CIT v. Vikash Polymers [2010] 194 Taxman 57 (Delh…