Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT

Shri Rajkot District Cooperative Bank Ltd., Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Pr. Commr. of Income Tax-1, Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2011-12 Shri Rajkot District Cooperative Vs. Pr.Cit, Rajkot-1 Bank Ltd. Rajkot. ‘Jilla Bank Bhavan’, Kasturba Road Opp: Chaudhari High School Rajkot. Pan : Aaaar 0564 K 0 अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assesseeby : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Ld.Ar Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Ld.Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17/11/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/02/2023

…justifying the order of the Commissioner u/s.263(l) the Hon.Supreme Court highlighted that the CIT had set aside the order for lack of inquiry and for non-application of mind. The Hon.Court also relied on the decision of Ram Pyari Deri Saraogi vs. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 as reported above to uphold that non application of mind renders the order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. (2) In the case of "Rain Commodities Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax" 3(1], Hyderabad(2011) 9 taxmann.com 128 (Hyd.) it has been held, The expression "prejudicial to the interest of revenue1 appearing under se…

Shri Praful Gautambhai Kothari, Rajkot vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 163/Rjt/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012

…left erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Thus, the order deserves to be revised as per the provisions of section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. There are various judicial decisions in 1. Rampyari Devi SaroglTO. CIT (SC) 67 ITR 84 2. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT(SC) 243 ITR 83 3. Swarup Vegetable Products Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT (ALL) 187 ITR 412 4. Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. Addl.CIT&Ors (Del.) 99 ITR 375 5. Rajalakshmi Mills Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITAT, SB-Chennai) 121 ITD 343, 313 ITR(AT) 182 6. SRM Systems & Software Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT 2010-TIOL-646-HC- MAD-IT. 7. Shakti Cred…

Shri Rajesh Sharma, Bhopal vs. PCIT -1 Bhopal, Bhopal

Bench: Ms.Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Rajesh Sharma Pr. Cit-1 बनाम/ Bhopal Bhopal Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Ampps4972A Assessee By None Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 13.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2023

…bove reasons I am satisfied that this is a fit case where action u/s 263 is justified and inescapable. This view of mine further gains strength and support by the ratio of the decisions in the case laws mentioned here below: 1. Ram Pyari Saraogi vs. CIT(1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that assessment made in undue haste and without making inquiries which are called for the circumstances of the case is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Page 4 of 6 Shri Rajesh Sharma Assessment year 2015-16 2.Malabar Industrial Co. ltd. Vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) Hon’ble Suprme Cou…

Komal Indstries Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.99/Srt/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Komal Industries Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income B-904, International Commerce Tax-1, Aaykar Bhawan, Nr. Majura Centre, Ring Road, Near Gate, Opp New Civil Hospital, Kadiwala School, Surat–395002. Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadck6228Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By None (Written Submissions) राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing 05/01/2023 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 23/01/2023

…use enquiry or verification has not been made and not because a wrong order has been passed on merits." The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has also considered the ratio laid down in earlier decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rampyari Devi Sarogiv. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) and Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT (1973) 88 ITR 323 (SC), wherein it was held that "where Assessing Officer has accepted a particular contention/issue without any enquiry or evidence whatsoever, the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue." The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. Additional Commiss…

Raj Abhishek Corporation, Surat vs. Pr. CIT-1, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.117/Srt/2022 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Raj Abhishek Corporation Principal Commissioner Of Income 501,Kohinoortextiles Market, Tax, Surat-1, Room No.123, Aaykar Vs. Ring Road, Surat-395002 Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat—395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aajfr 6297 D (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ketan Jagirdar, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit-D.R

…been made and not because there is anything wrong with the order if all the facts stated therein are assumed to be correct." 13. In the said judgment, Delhi High Court had referred to earlier decisions of the Supreme Court in Rampyari Devi Sarogiv. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) and Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT (1973) 88 ITR 323 (SC), wherein it has been held that where Assessing Officer has accepted a particular contention/issue without any enquiry or evidence whatsoever, the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. After reference to these two decisions, the Delhi High Court observed:- "These…

Atul Kumar Anchalia, Jaora vs. PCIT-1, Indore

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri B.M. Biyani (Accountant Member)

…e-tax Appellate Tribunal, by relying on the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83/109 Taxman.com 66, the order passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 and CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan [2016] 69 taxmann.com 170/240 Taxmann 221/384 ITR 200 (SC) relevant extracts of which have been quoted by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in paragraphs 4..2 and 4.3 of its order, has arrived at a conclusion that as the Assessing Officer has passed the order of assessment without making a proper enquiry and without app…

Bhavendra Hasmukhlal Patadia. Legal Heir of Hasmukhlal Patadia., Cuttack vs. ITO Ward-!(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.125/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2015-2016) Bhavendra Hasmukhlal Patadia, Vs Ito, Ward-1(1), Cuttack Legal Heir Of Hasmukhlal Patadia, Nayabazar, Chauliaganj, Cuttack-753004 Pan No. :Adapp 6256 G (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Deepak Shah, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Pr.Cit, Cuttack, Passed In Itba/Com/F/17/2019-20/1026790827(1), Dated 19.03.2020, For The Assessment Year 2015-2016. Head On The Question Of Condonation Of Delay 2. On Perusal Of The Appeal Record, It Is Found That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 784 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Dated 11.07.2022 Along With Affidavit Stating Therein That Due To Continuous Lockdown On Account Of Spread Of Covid-19, The Assessee Could Not File The Present Appeal In Time, Therefore, He Prayed That Delay Of 784 Days In Filing The Present Appeal May Kindly Be Condoned. On The Other Hand, Ld. Cit-Dr Did Not Object To The Above Submission Of The Ld. Ar. Considering The Above, We Condone

…his in fact represents trite law, and for which we may, apart from the decision in Gee Vee Enterprises case (supra) (which itself draws on several decisions, including by the Apex Court, to two of which we may refer, i.e., Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 (SC) and Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal vs. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323, advert to a series of decisions, including by the Hon'ble Apex and jurisdictional High Court, as follows, viz. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83/109 Taxman 66 (SC); CIT vs. Mc Millan & Co. [1958] 33 ITR 182 (SC); Iai Bharath Tanners vs. CIT [2003] 264 ITR 673/128 Taxman…

M/S. Govind Stone Private Limited, Hamirpur vs. Income Tax Officer -5(4), Banda

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

…AO resulting in drawing incorrect assumption of facts, makes the orders erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue." 92 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Govind Stone Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO Banda 27. In the case of Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC) the Tribunal had held as follows:- "The Tribunal further held that if the orders for 1955-56 to 1959-60 were left out and the assessment order for 1960-61 was considered by itself, it could not be said that the assessment order was prejudicial to the interests of revenue. It was also observed that the factum of advance of initial capital, rea…

M/S. North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Ltd., Shillong vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - Shillong, Shillong

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

…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] 18. 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…

M/S. North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Ltd., Shillong vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - Shillong, Shillong

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

…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] 18. 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…