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

Issues it is cited on

section 263(1)inadequate enquirymalabar industriallack of enquiryprejudicial to interest of revenuerevision under section 263assessment order erroneousrevision u/s 263erroneous and prejudicialsection 263non-application of mindsection 26

Judgments citing Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT

Bhajan Lal Suresh Chandra Sarraf, Ajmer vs. PCIT (Central), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 135/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Dec 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Sunil Porwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri P.R. Meena (CIT)
Section 115Section 115BSection 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 69A

…xpayer will not suffer, as he will be given due opportunity at the time of such taxation, I rely upon order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rampyari Devi versus 4 M/s. Bhajan Lal Suresh Chandra Sarraf, Beawar. Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in 67 ITR 84, Supreme Court. (third last paragraph thereof may be seen for this proposition). I wish to make it clear that I am not disturbing the assessment that has already been made. I am only passing an order for taxability of income as above, as per provisions of section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (as the income is undisclosed income within the mea…

Siemens Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 7(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4355/MUM/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2004-05
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 245CSection 245D(1)Section 245D(3)Section 245D(4)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘E‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. Siemens Ltd., Vs. Pr. Commissioner of Birla Aurora Towers Income Tax-7 Level-21, Plot No.1080 Room No.611, Dr. Annie Besant Road Aayakar Bhavan Worli, Mumbai- 400 030 Mumbai- 400 020 PAN/GIR No.AAAS0764L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Shri Nitesh Joshi Revenue by Smt. Usha Shrote, CIT DR Date of Hearing 30/11/2022 Date of Pronouncement 30/11/2022 आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): This appeal in ITA No.4355/Mum/2010 for A.Y.2004-…

Manoj Kumar Sharma, Jaipur vs. PCIT(Central), Jaipur

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

ITA 283/JPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: ShriMahendraGargieya (Adv.)&For Respondent: ShriJames Kurian (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…the proposition that the taxpayer will not suffer (as he will be given due opportunity at the time of levy or non-levy of penalty), I rely upon order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rampyari Devi Saraogi versus Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in 67 ITR 84 (Supreme Court) (3rd last paragraph thereof maybe seen for this proposition). I wish to make it clear that I am not disturbing the assessment that has already been made. I am only passing an order for initiation / levy of penalty as detailed above, that too based upon independent satisfaction of the assessing officer, who will duly consider the rep…

Manoj Kumar Sharma, Jaipur vs. PCIT(Central), Jaipur

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

ITA 282/JPR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: ShriMahendraGargieya (Adv.)&For Respondent: ShriJames Kurian (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…the proposition that the taxpayer will not suffer (as he will be given due opportunity at the time of levy or non-levy of penalty), I rely upon order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rampyari Devi Saraogi versus Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in 67 ITR 84 (Supreme Court) (3rd last paragraph thereof maybe seen for this proposition). I wish to make it clear that I am not disturbing the assessment that has already been made. I am only passing an order for initiation / levy of penalty as detailed above, that too based upon independent satisfaction of the assessing officer, who will duly consider the rep…

Manoj Kumar Sharma, Jaipur vs. PCIT (Central), Jaipur

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

ITA 281/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: ShriMahendraGargieya (Adv.)&For Respondent: ShriJames Kurian (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…the proposition that the taxpayer will not suffer (as he will be given due opportunity at the time of levy or non-levy of penalty), I rely upon order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rampyari Devi Saraogi versus Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in 67 ITR 84 (Supreme Court) (3rd last paragraph thereof maybe seen for this proposition). I wish to make it clear that I am not disturbing the assessment that has already been made. I am only passing an order for initiation / levy of penalty as detailed above, that too based upon independent satisfaction of the assessing officer, who will duly consider the rep…

Ram Kishan Verma, Kota vs. PCIT (Central), Jaipur

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

ITA 223/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: ShriMahendraGargieya (Adv.)&For Respondent: ShriJames Kurian (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…the proposition that the taxpayer will not suffer (as he will be given due opportunity at the time of levy or non-levy of penalty), I rely upon order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rampyari Devi Saraogi versus Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in 67 ITR 84 (Supreme Court) (3rd last paragraph thereof maybe seen for this proposition). I wish to make it clear that I am not disturbing the assessment that has already been made. I am only passing an order for initiation / levy of penalty as detailed above, that too based upon independent satisfaction of the assessing officer, who will duly consider the rep…

Ram Kishan Verma, Kota vs. PCIT (Central), Jaipur

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

ITA 222/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: ShriMahendraGargieya (Adv.)&For Respondent: ShriJames Kurian (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…the proposition that the taxpayer will not suffer (as he will be given due opportunity at the time of levy or non-levy of penalty), I rely upon order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rampyari Devi Saraogi versus Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in 67 ITR 84 (Supreme Court) (3rd last paragraph thereof maybe seen for this proposition). I wish to make it clear that I am not disturbing the assessment that has already been made. I am only passing an order for initiation / levy of penalty as detailed above, that too based upon independent satisfaction of the assessing officer, who will duly consider the rep…

Ram Kishan Verma, Kota vs. PCIT (Central), Jaipur

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

ITA 221/JPR/2022[2016/17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2022
For Appellant: ShriMahendraGargieya (Adv.)&For Respondent: ShriJames Kurian (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…the proposition that the taxpayer will not suffer (as he will be given due opportunity at the time of levy or non-levy of penalty), I rely upon order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rampyari Devi Saraogi versus Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in 67 ITR 84 (Supreme Court) (3rd last paragraph thereof maybe seen for this proposition). I wish to make it clear that I am not disturbing the assessment that has already been made. I am only passing an order for initiation / levy of penalty as detailed above, that too based upon independent satisfaction of the assessing officer, who will duly consider the rep…

Ram Kishan Verma, Kota vs. PCIT (Central), Jaipur

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

ITA 220/JPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: ShriMahendraGargieya (Adv.)&For Respondent: ShriJames Kurian (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…the proposition that the taxpayer will not suffer (as he will be given due opportunity at the time of levy or non-levy of penalty), I rely upon order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rampyari Devi Saraogi versus Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in 67 ITR 84 (Supreme Court) (3rd last paragraph thereof maybe seen for this proposition). I wish to make it clear that I am not disturbing the assessment that has already been made. I am only passing an order for initiation / levy of penalty as detailed above, that too based upon independent satisfaction of the assessing officer, who will duly consider the rep…

Ram Kishan Verma, Kota vs. PCIT (Circle), Jaipur

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

ITA 219/JPR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: ShriMahendraGargieya (Adv.)&For Respondent: ShriJames Kurian (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…the proposition that the taxpayer will not suffer (as he will be given due opportunity at the time of levy or non-levy of penalty), I rely upon order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rampyari Devi Saraogi versus Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in 67 ITR 84 (Supreme Court) (3rd last paragraph thereof maybe seen for this proposition). I wish to make it clear that I am not disturbing the assessment that has already been made. I am only passing an order for initiation / levy of penalty as detailed above, that too based upon independent satisfaction of the assessing officer, who will duly consider the rep…

Ram Kishan Verma, Kota vs. PCIT (Central), Jaipur

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

ITA 218/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: ShriMahendraGargieya (Adv.)&For Respondent: ShriJames Kurian (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…the proposition that the taxpayer will not suffer (as he will be given due opportunity at the time of levy or non-levy of penalty), I rely upon order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rampyari Devi Saraogi versus Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in 67 ITR 84 (Supreme Court) (3rd last paragraph thereof maybe seen for this proposition). I wish to make it clear that I am not disturbing the assessment that has already been made. I am only passing an order for initiation / levy of penalty as detailed above, that too based upon independent satisfaction of the assessing officer, who will duly consider the rep…

Ram Kishan Verma, Kota vs. PCIT (Central), Jaipur

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

ITA 217/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: ShriMahendraGargieya (Adv.)&For Respondent: ShriJames Kurian (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…the proposition that the taxpayer will not suffer (as he will be given due opportunity at the time of levy or non-levy of penalty), I rely upon order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rampyari Devi Saraogi versus Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in 67 ITR 84 (Supreme Court) (3rd last paragraph thereof maybe seen for this proposition). I wish to make it clear that I am not disturbing the assessment that has already been made. I am only passing an order for initiation / levy of penalty as detailed above, that too based upon independent satisfaction of the assessing officer, who will duly consider the rep…

Harish Jain, Kota vs. PCIT (Central), Jaipur

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

ITA 216/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: ShriMahendraGargieya (Adv.)&For Respondent: ShriJames Kurian (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…the proposition that the taxpayer will not suffer (as he will be given due opportunity at the time of levy or non-levy of penalty), I rely upon order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rampyari Devi Saraogi versus Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in 67 ITR 84 (Supreme Court) (3rd last paragraph thereof maybe seen for this proposition). I wish to make it clear that I am not disturbing the assessment that has already been made. I am only passing an order for initiation / levy of penalty as detailed above, that too based upon independent satisfaction of the assessing officer, who will duly consider the rep…

Harish Jain, Jaipur vs. PCIT (Central), Jaipur

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

ITA 215/JPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: ShriMahendraGargieya (Adv.)&For Respondent: ShriJames Kurian (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…the proposition that the taxpayer will not suffer (as he will be given due opportunity at the time of levy or non-levy of penalty), I rely upon order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rampyari Devi Saraogi versus Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in 67 ITR 84 (Supreme Court) (3rd last paragraph thereof maybe seen for this proposition). I wish to make it clear that I am not disturbing the assessment that has already been made. I am only passing an order for initiation / levy of penalty as detailed above, that too based upon independent satisfaction of the assessing officer, who will duly consider the rep…

Harish Jain, Kota vs. PCIT (Central), Jaipur

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

ITA 214/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: ShriMahendraGargieya (Adv.)&For Respondent: ShriJames Kurian (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…the proposition that the taxpayer will not suffer (as he will be given due opportunity at the time of levy or non-levy of penalty), I rely upon order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rampyari Devi Saraogi versus Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in 67 ITR 84 (Supreme Court) (3rd last paragraph thereof maybe seen for this proposition). I wish to make it clear that I am not disturbing the assessment that has already been made. I am only passing an order for initiation / levy of penalty as detailed above, that too based upon independent satisfaction of the assessing officer, who will duly consider the rep…

Sh. Gurdeep Singh, Sirmour vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh-1

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 453/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: The Appeal Is Finally Disposed Off.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Goyal, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Vivek Nangia, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

…y. Accordingly, the reference to the obiter in D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the Court has no play in the facts of the present case. 3.23 Referring to the decision relied upon in para 11 page 12 to 13 in Smt. Rampyari Devi Sarogi Vs CIT 67 ITR 84 (S.C) and Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal Vs CIT 88 ITR 323 (S.C), it was submitted that these were peculiar cases where due to malafide actions on the part of the respective assessees, their returns had been filed before the non jurisdictional AO who had passed the order in undue haste. Hence, neither the facts are similar nor is ITA-453/CHD/2022 A.Y. 20…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 9 Kolkata vs. Mrs Premlata Tekriwal

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are

ITAT/29/2022HC Calcutta22 Nov 2022

Bench: This Court In Itat/27/2022, Itat/32/2022 And

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…uiry made a disallowance only to the extent of 3% of the bogus purchase. With regard to the aspect of the assessing officer as to making inquiries, the PCIT referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Rampyari Devi Saraogi Vs. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84, Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal Vs. CIT (1973) 88 ITR 323 (SC) and the decision of the other High Courts. Further, the PCIT took note of the Explanation 2 to Section 263 of the Act inserted by the Finance Act, 2015 with effect from 1.6.2015 and pointed out if an order has been passed by the Assessing Officer without making any inquiry or verification then…

Rk Infra & Engineering India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Hyderabad

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

ITA 188/HYD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 R.K. Infra & Engineering India Vs. Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, Ward – 3, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aadcr9570Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Pawan Kumar Chakrapani Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya Date Of Hearing: 21.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.11.2022

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Kumar ChakrapaniFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya
Section 143(3)Section 263

…rder which simply accepts what the assessee has stated in its return and fails to make enquiries which are called for in the circumstances of the case. Reliance is placed on the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Rampyari Devi Saraogi Vs. CIT(1968) 67 ITR 84(SC) and Taradevi Agarwal Vs.CIT (1973) 88 ITR 323 (SC). 15 7. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that the Assessing Officer failed to verify the reason for which the case was selected for scrutiny and simply accepted what the assessee stated in the return and failed to make enquires on the issue of borrowed funds being issued to the rela…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 2 Kolkata vs. M/S Bhagwati Vintrade Pvt Ltd

Accordingly, the appeal fails and dismissed

ITAT/184/2022HC Calcutta18 Nov 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Dated : November 18, 2022. Appearance: Mr. Samarjit Roychowdhury, Adv. Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. …For Appellant Mr. S.M. Surana, Adv. Mr. Bhaskar Sengupta, Adv. …For Respondent The Court :- This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.02.2021 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) In Ita No. 303/Kol/2020 For The Assessment Year 2013-2014. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration : I) Whether The Learned Tribunal Has Committed Substantial Error In Law By Not Upholding The Order Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 By Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax As Because The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Is Erroneous & So Far As Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue ?

Section 131Section 263

…Tribunal has committed substantial error in law by holding that the revisionary power of PCIT under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is bad in law and quashing the same, whereas the Hon’ble Apex court in the matte of Rampyari Devi Sarogi Vs. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) AND Tara Devi Agarwal – Vs. CIT (1973) 88 ITR 323 (SC) held that in absence of proper enquiries the assessment order would become erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue ? iii) Whether the Learned Tribunal has committed substantial error in law in quashing the order under section 263 of the Act of PCIT dated 21.02.2020 where…

Sherawali Coal Carrier (P) Ltd, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 441/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri M. Baranwal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)

…n made and not because there is anything wrong with the order if all the facts stated therein are assumed to be correct." 14. In the said judgment, Delhi High Court had referred to earlier decisions of the Supreme Court in Rampyari Devi Sarogi vs. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) and Tara Devi Aggarwal vs. 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:- "Thes…