Raj Kumar Srimal v. CIT

102 ITR 525High Court1976#4269 most cited

What is Raj Kumar Srimal v. CIT authority for?

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] can admit new grounds or evidence, either on their own or at the parties' request, but if admitted at the assessee's invitation, there must be a valid explanation for not producing the evidence earlier.

27

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Raj Kumar Srimal v. CIT · 102 ITR 525 · admission of new ground · admission of new evidence · appellate stage · CIT(A) · explanation for failure to adduce evidence · violation of natural justice

Sections most often in play

Section 119Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 158BG

Issues it is cited on

section 153(a)violation of natural justicesection 132(4a)section 40a(3)section 132(1)section 153a(1)section 145(3)section 40arule 46asearch assessmentsection 153dsection 145

Judgments citing Raj Kumar Srimal v. CIT

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-I, Kanpur vs. Shri Yogendra Kumar Jaiswal, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 442/LKW/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2015-16 Dy. Cit V. Shri Yogendra Kumar Jaiswal Central Circle-I 2601, Glenridege Kanpur Hiranandani Gardens Powai, Mumbai Pan:Aaopj1739K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Smt. Namita S Pandey, Cit(Dr) Respondent By: None Date Of Hearing: 13 05 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 05 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Smt. Namita S Pandey, CIT(DR)For Respondent: None
Section 250(4)

…rcumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in admitting the additional evidence at appellate stage without appreciating that the purpose of rule 46A is to ensure that evidence is primarily led before the Income-tax Officer as held in Rajkumar Srimal 102 ITR 525 (Cal), Ganpatrai & Sons Ltd. 24 ITR 362 (Bom). 5. On facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in admitting the additional evidence and asking the AO to submit enquiry report u/s 250(4) without mentioning as to on what issues the enquiries were directed by him. The Ld. CIT(A) should have specifically mentioned the issues on w…

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Noida vs. Aashikyana Civil Contractors P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 9025/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 250(4)Section 68

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHIBENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. C. M. Garg, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 9025/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year: 2014-15 DCIT, Vs. M/s Aashiyana Civil Contractors Pvt. Central Circle-1, Ltd., R/o 302-304, Harsha Corner Noida Complex, Ghazipur, New Delhi-110096 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAECA4833G Assessee by : None Sh. Manoj Kumar, CA (LOA filed) Revenue by : Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 16.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 23.03.2023 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by Revenue against…

Captain Steel India Limited, Kolkata vs. CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 231/KOL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Sanjoy Kejriwal & Shri SiddharthFor Respondent: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 80J

…s Ltd. (2008) 306 ITR 42 (Del.); (iii) Hukumchand Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT (1967) 63 ITR 232 (SC); (iv) CIT Vs. Sayaji Mills Ltd. (1974) 94 ITR 26 (Guj.) (v) CIT Vs. Cellulose Products of India Ltd. (1985) 141 ITR 499 (Guj- HC-FB) (vi) Rajkumar Srimal Vs. CIT (1976)102 ITR 525 (Cal) (vii) National Thermal Power Company Ltd. Vs. CIT (1998)229 ITR 383 (SC) (viii) ITO Vs. Vintage Distillers Ltd. (2010) 130 TTJ 79 (Del.) (ix) DCIT (LTU) (2021) 435 ITR 85 (Del.). 3.2. To substantiate its claim, assessee also furnished Form 10DA certifying the number of new employees added to the work-force as 4 Captain Steel India Ltd., AY…

DCIT, Cir-11(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Emami Biotech Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1915/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

…proved in the case of CIT -vs,- Cellulose Products Indja Ltd. (1985) 151 ITR 499 (Guj - HC - FB), 2.8. Supreme Court in Jute Corporation Ltd. (Supra) specifically approved the decision of Jurisdictional Calcutta High Court In Rajkumar Srjmal -vs.- CIT (1976) 102 ITR 525 (Cal. ), where it has been held that, the appellate commissioner was entitled to admit new ground or evidence either suo moto or at the invitation of the appellant. 2.9. In this regards Central Board of Revenue (now CBDT) vide Circular No. 14 (XL - 35) of 1955 dated 11-04-1955, states that, 8 A.Y. 2011-2012 M/s. Emami Biotech Limited officer…

Shri Rambadal Dhuman Yadav, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(6), Baroda

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 1846/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Nov 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: The Assessing Officer During The Assessment Proceedings”. Learned Counsel For The Assessee Submits That As The Assessment Was Framed Ex-Parte, Due To Factors Beyond The Control Of The Assessee, It Was A Fit Case In Which The Additional Evidences Should Have Been Admitted By The I Ta N O. 1 8 4 6/ Ah D 2 01 4 R A Mb A D Al D H U Mu N Y A Da V Vs . I To Ass E Ss Me N T Y Ea R : 2 0 10 - 1 1 Page 2 Of 9

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44A

…nscious to the esteemed views of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court that there has to be a reasonable explanation for non filing of such additional evidence before the Assessing Officer. Hon’ble Calcutta High Court, in the case of Raj Kumar Srimal v. CIT[1976] 102 ITR 525 (Cal.), had no occasion to examine this aspect of the matter wherein Justice Sabyasachi Mukerjee (as he then was) observed : "It is true, as contended by the counsel of the assessee, that AAC has very vide powers and the interest of the substantial justice he can make further enquiry and he can admit a new ground of appeal. He can also give deduc…

Shri Pankajkumar Bhikhabhai Patel, Anand vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Anand

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 661/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Sept 2017AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69A

…scious to the esteemed views of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court that there has to be a reasonable explanation for non filing of such additional evidence before the Assessing Officer. Hon’ble Calcutta High Court, in the case of Raj Kumar Srimal v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 525 (Cal.), had no occasion to examine this aspect of the matter wherein Justice Sabyasachi Mukerjee (as he then was) observed : "It is true, as contended by the counsel of the assessee, that AAC has very vide powers and the interest of the substantial justice he can make further enquiry and he can admit a new ground of appeal. He can also give deduc…

Mohd. Suleman, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6491/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 6491/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Mohd. Suleman, Vs Income Tax Officer, S/O Anwar, H.No. 104, Shekhpur, Ward-1(4), Khichra Gulawati Road, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Clzps3936F Assessee By : Sh. Harsh Pandey, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Bedobani Choudhari, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.03.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.03.2017 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.09.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A), Ghaziabad.

For Appellant: Sh. Harsh Pandey, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Bedobani Choudhari, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 69A

…n the shape of affidavit sworn in by third party such as creditors (Hanutram Ramprasad V CIT 1978,114ITR19(Gau). It is within the discretion of CIT (A) to admit or not to admit further evidence. But such Discrition must be reasonably exercised. Rajkumar V CIT 102 ITR 525 approved by SC in Jute Corporation VCIT 187 ITR 688, 695 and EM Chettyar V CIT 4 ITC 111. Compliance with the principle of natural justice must necessarily be read into the provisions of rules. CIT v United 7 Mohd. Suleman Towers (I) Pvt. Ltd. 2008, 296 ITR 106 DEL We hope that above clarification along with additional evidences produce before y…