How many judgments cite Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT?

616 judgments on BharatTax cite Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT (67 ITR 84), spanning 2009 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 263, Section 143(3), Section 142(1), Section 1961, Section 147, Section 144B.

Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT

67 ITR 84Supreme Court of India1968#97 most cited

What is Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT authority for?

An assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue's interests if the Assessing Officer accepts a sum offered as income by an assessee, even when that sum was not actually earned, thereby allowing revision under Section 263.

616

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT · Section 263 revision · assessment erroneous and prejudicial · unearned income offered · Assessing Officer accepting income · Commissioner's power of revision · inadequate inquiry by AO · Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. reference · Income Tax Act 1961 Section 263

Also reported as

3 SCC 482240 Taxmann 221

Sections most often in play

Section 263 Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 1961 Section 147 Section 144B Section 148 Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

section 263(1)inadequate enquiry malabar industrial lack of enquiry prejudicial to interest of revenue revision under section 263 assessment order erroneous revision u/s 263 erroneous and prejudicial section 263 non-application of mind section 26

Judgments citing Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT

Sri Muniraju Kempanna, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1167/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev C. Nulvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…y loss of revenue as a consequence of such order of the Assessing Officer has be treated as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. At this juncture we also refer to decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ram Pyari Devi Sagar Vs. CIT reported in (1968) 67 ITR 84 and Taradevi Agarwal Vs. CIT reported in (1973) 88 ITR 323, wherein, it is held that, mere failure to make enquiries would make the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue. These principles laid down in aforesaid decision were ITA Nos.1164 to 1170/Bang/2022 Sri Muniraju Kempanna, Bangalore Page 4 of 15 reiterated by Hon’b…

Sri Muniraju Kempanna, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1166/BANG/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev C. Nulvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

Sri Muniraju Kempanna, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1165/BANG/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev C. Nulvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

Sri Muniraju Kempanna, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1164/BANG/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev C. Nulvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

M/S. T.C. Software Consultancy Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT -1, Mumbai

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

ITA 1218/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S. () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(1)Section 68

…1 ITA 1218/Mum/2022 TC Software Consultancy Private Limited IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE MS. PADMAVATHY S. (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) I.T.A. No.1218/Mum/2022 (Assessment year 2011-12) M/s T C Software Consultancy Pvt vs PCIT-1, Mumbai Ltd, 30, 2nd Floor, Nawab Building Room No.330, 3rd Floor D.N. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road PAN : AACCT1356K Mumbai APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri Akash Kumar Department represented by Shri Rakesh Garg – CIT DR Date of hearing 08-06-2023 Date of pronouncement 21-…

Shri Sham Lal & Sons, Amritsar vs. Principal Commissioner of Inome Tax Central, Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 103/ASR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…re a sum not earned by a person is assessed as income in his hands on his so offering, the order passed by the Assessing Officer accepting the same as such will be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue - Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 (SC) and in Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC)”. I.T.A. No. 103/Asr/2023 9 Assessment Year: 2019-20 The order cannot be as erroneous on the point of verification and difference of opinion in between the assessing authority and the ld. PCIT. We respectfully relied on the order of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd(supra). The revision…

Spectrum Infonet Pvt. Ltd., Raigarh vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bhopal

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 34/RPR/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 33 & 34/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Spectrum Infonet Private Limited 601, South Gajanandpuram Colony, Kotra Road, Raigarh (C.G.)-496001 Pan : Aalcs5656E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Bhopal ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 263

…rry Vintrade Pvt Ltd which could substantiate its creditworthiness to give Rs. 21,20,000/- to the assessee company. Considering the above facts, and relying on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rampyari Devi Saraogi Vs CIT(SC) 67 ITR 84 and in the case of Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. Vs CIT(SC) 243 ITR 83, I am satisfied that the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2010-11 on 29.12.2017 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Therefore, the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 r…

Spectrum Infonet Pvt. Ltd., Raigarh vs. Pr. CIT (Central), Bhopal

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 33/RPR/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 263

M/S Bhilai Jaypee Cement Limited, Bhilai(Cg) vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Raipur (Cg)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 113/BIL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.113/Rpr/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Bhilai Jaypee Cement Limited 14B, F Pocket, Maroda, Bhilai. Pan : Aadcb1675Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Simran Bhullar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…called for in the circumstances of the case so made will be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and the Commissioner has jurisdiction to cancel the assessment. ii. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Pyari Devi Saragi Vs. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) "where the assessment is made in undue haste and without enquiry it will be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue." iii. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of M.P in the case of CIT Vs. Deepak Kumar Gaya 299 ITR 433 has held under "where from order of Assessing Officer had don(' only a semblance of enquiry and that too, in very slipshod…

Ortem Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT-2, Kol, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 500/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2018-19 Ortem Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. Pcit - 2, Kolkata P-141, Kalindi Housing Estate, Vs. Kalindi Vatika, 4D, Block-B, Lake Town, Kolkata-700089. Pan: Aabco 2390 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri S. Datta, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Pcit, Kolkata-2 Dated 21.03.2023 Framed U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Order Of The Ld. Pcit Is Contrary To Law & The Facts Of The Appellant Case. 2. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Pcit Erred In Holding That Order Passed U/S 143(3) Dated 08-02- 2021 Is Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Revenue. 3. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Pcit Erred In Disallowing Employee Contribution Of Rs. 1,53,300/- & Employer Contribution Of Rs. 1,44,998/- Made Towards Provident Fund (Pf) & Employee State Insurance Corporation (Esic). 4. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Pcit Erred In Not Considering The Fact That Both Employee & Employer Contribution Aggregating Rs. 2,98,298/- Was Made Before The Due Date Of Filing Income Tax Return.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. Datta, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36Section 36(1)Section 43B

…hat mere non enquiry would also render a particular order passed by lower authority as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. This position has been clearly confirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 & Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC). The reasoning for this proposition has 11 Ortem Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2018-19 been explained by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprise v. Addl. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 in the following para :- "It is not necessary for the Commissioner to make further inquiries before can…

Smt. Parminder Kaur Brar, Kotkapura vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Amritsar

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

ITA 72/ASR/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 263oSection 54

…ed of fair opportunity to show cause against proposed action. The Tribunal was, thus, justified in reversing the Commissioner's order. Their Lordships have made a reference of a decision of Hon. Supreme Court in the case of Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 . Similar view has been taken by the Orissa High Court in the matter of sales tax in the case of Rawani Dal & Flour Mills v. CST [1992] 86 STC 409 and under Orissa sales tax Act, the Commissioner issued notice exercising his revisional jurisdiction without giving reasons in notice. Their Lordships held that the notice should contain the reasons so…

Shri Bhawani Shankar Parashar, Indore vs. The DCIT/ACIT 1 (2), Indore

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 411/IND/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Bhawani Shankar Pr. Cit-1 Prashar Indore 28, Lasudia Mori, Vijay Vs. Nagar, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bgbpp 2475 G Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2023

Section 263

…ed by a person is assessed as income in his hands on his so offering, the order passed by the Assessing Officer accepting the same as such will be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Rampyari Devi Saraogi Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [67 ITR 84] and in Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal [88 ITR 323].” 20. Thus, in case the AO has adopted one of the courses permissible in law would not render the order of the AO erroneous. Similarly after the AO has taken a possible view then the order of the AO would not be regarding as erroneous merely because the commis…

M/S Rani Sati Agro Tech Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-12(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 85/KOL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT D/R

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263Section 68

…re a sum not earned by a person is assessed as income in his hands on his so offering, the order passed by the Assessing Officer accepting the same as such will be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue - Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 (SC) and in Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC)”. [Emphasis Supplied] 11.1. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Max India Limited as reported in 295 ITR 0282 has held that: “2. At this stage we may clarify that under para 10 of the judgment in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (supra) this Court has taken the view that…

Barclays Merchant Bank ( Singapore ) Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (International Circle) Range-1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse stand dismissed

ITA 907/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Rajesh Meshram

Section 143(3)Section 263

…. “i. Guwahati High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jawahar Bhattacharjee (341 ITR 434). ii. Rajasthan High Court in the case of CITVs. Emery Stone Manufacturing Company (213 ITR 843) iii. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rampyari Devi Saraogi Vs. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) and Tara Devi Aggarwal Vs. CIT (1973) 88 ITR 323 (SC) iv. ITO Vs. DG Housing Projects Limited (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Delhi) v. Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. ACIT (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Delhi)” 8. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. During the course of assessment proceedings the assesse has filed detaile…

M/S Roy and Sahani Company, Hooghly vs. ITO, Ward 24(1), Hooghly

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 169/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, CIT D/R

Section 143(3)Section 263

…re a sum not earned by a person is assessed as income in his hands on his so offering, the order passed by the Assessing Officer accepting the same as such will be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue - Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 (SC) and in Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC)”.[Emphasis Supplied] 11. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Max India Limited as reported in 295 ITR 0282 has held that: “ 2. At this stage we may clarify that under para 10 of the judgment in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (supra) this Court has taken the view that t…

Kanoi Tea Private Limited, Kolkata vs. P.C.I.T. - 2, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 18/KOL/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Jun 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, D/R

Section 249Section 253Section 263Section 3Section 5

…re a sum not earned by a person is assessed as income in his hands on his so offering, the order passed by the Assessing Officer accepting the same as such will be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue - Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 (SC) and in Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC). [Emphasis Supplied]” 16.2. The Hone’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Spectra Shares and Scrips Pvt. Ltd. V CIT (AP) 354 ITR 35 had considered a number of judgments on this issue of exercise of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax a…

Meera Hussain, Chennai vs. PCIT, Chennai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 501/CHNY/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jmand Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.501/Chny/2022 (िनधा1रणवष1 / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Meera Hussain Pr. Cit बनाम/ 19, Thambu Chetty Street, Chennai-8. Vs. Mannady,Chennai-600 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aahpm-9324-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ("#थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri T.T. Durairaj Kandiar(Ca) – Ld.Ar "#थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan (Cit) – Ld.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04-05-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19-05-2023 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Assail The Invocation Of Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai-8 (Pr. Cit) Vide Impugned Order Dated 25.03.2021 In The Matter An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 14-11-2017. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are As Under:- “On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Of The Hon'Ble Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai-8, Passed U/S.263, With Reference No.: Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2020-21/ 1031753147(1), Dated 25.03.2021, Is Against The Facts Of The Case Weight Of Evidence On Record & Bad In Law For The Following Reasons:-

For Appellant: Shri T.T. Durairaj Kandiar(CA) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan (CIT) – Ld.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…re accepted without enquiry, the assessment order was erroneous and order u/s 263 was justified. In case of Supercloth, 99 ITD 300 (Chn), it was held that lack of enquiry by AO was sufficient to invoke revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263. In caseof Rampyari Devi 67 ITR 84 (SC), it was held that accepting the issue without conduction enquiry is valid ground for invoking proceedings u/s 263. In case of the assessee, the Assessing Officer has neither applied her mind nor made any enquiry or called for all required details to come to a proper conclusion. In fact, the explanations given by the assessee during the present…

Vishal Nagpal, Saharanpur vs. Pr.CIT, Muzaffarnagar

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3790/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263

…w or of fact on the face of it but also because it is a stereo- typed order which simply accepts what the assessee has stated in his return and fails to make enquiries which are called for in the circumstances of the case [Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) and Tara Devi Aggarwal vs. CIT, (1973), 88 ITR 323 6.1. Reliance is also placed on the following case laws: Duggal & Co. vs. Cl 1, (1996) 220 H R 456, 459 (Dei.) (i) Shri Virendra Kumar Gupta Vs CIT in ITA No 2595/D/2009 dated (ii) 21/01/2011 (IT AT, Delhi) 11 7. Thus, after careful consideration of material available on records and in view…

Kaur Kookies (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr, CIT, Delhi-4, New Delhi

Appeal are allowed

ITA 1119/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 263Section 36

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/s Kaur Cookies (P) Ltd., Vs Principal Commissioner of F-38, Ambience Mall, Vasant Income-tax, Delhi-4, Kunj, New Delhi. New Delhi-110070. PAN- AACCK8951H APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Sh. Lalit Mohan, CA Department represented by Sh. Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 18.04.2023 Date of pronouncement 11.05.2023 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, JM: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of…

Garud Credit & Holding Pvt Ltd, Kolkata vs. I.T.O WD - 9(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 1270/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 1270/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Garud Credit & Holding Pvt. Limited,.........Appellant D.J. Shah & Co., 2, Elgin Road, Kolkata-700020 [Pan: Aaacg9791P] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,.................................Respondent Ward-9(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Veekaas S. Sharma, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 06, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 01, 2023 O R D E R

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 35DSection 68

…re a sum not earned by a person is assessed as income in his hands on his so offering, the order passed by the Assessing Officer accepting the same as such will be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue - Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 (SC) and in Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC). [Emphasis Supplied]” 20. Now in light of judicial precedence, let us examine the second fold of contention by the assessee that extensive inquiries and investigation was carried out by the Ld. AO before adopting one of the possible views, hence, assessment order cannot be said to b…