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 366,369 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

Shivam Developers, Godadra vs. ITO, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 76/SRT/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.76/Srt/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Court Hearing) Shivam Developers, Vs. The Pr. Cit-2, 141, Khodiyar Residency, Surat. Godadra, Surat-395010. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acffs4002D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 06/10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 11/11/2022

Section 115Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 40Section 69A

…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. Commissioner of Income-tax, (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) and in Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal, 88 ITR 323.” In the case of S.K.Srigiri and Bros. (supra), the Karnataka High Court held as under: “We have perused the orders of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has carefully considered the questions put by the authority and the answer of the partners of the assessee's firm…

New Carrying Corporation, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward-12(1)I/C, Chennai

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

ITA 229/CHNY/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 229/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Respondent: Shri. M. Rajan, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263Section 40Section 4o

…to the interest of the Revenue. 9. The PCIT, after considering relevant submissions and also by following certain judicial precedence including the :-7-: ITA. No:229 /Chny/2022 decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs DCIT, 67 ITR 84, opined that the assessment order passed by the AO is erroneous so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue in terms of section 263 of the Act and thus, set aside the assessment order and direct the Assessing Officer to examine the issues and pass fresh assessment order in accordance with law. The relevant findings of the PCIT are as…

M/S Uma Glass Works, Agra vs. Pr.CIT.-1, Agra

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2014-15 and

ITA 18/AGR/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra02 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.17 & 18/Agra/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2014-15 & 2015-16 बनाम M/S Uma Glass Works Pcit, 22, Near Industrial Estate, Vs. Agra-1, Firozabad - 283203 Uttar Pradesh.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…s that it has been held that the AO is not supposed to accept a claim in the absence of supporting materials without making an enquiry. The Ld. DR also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Pyari Devi Sarogi vs. CIT (67 ITR 84) and Tara Devi Aggarwal vs. CIT (88 ITR 323). 17. In reply the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the decisions relied on by the Ld. DR has been considered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT vs. Jyoti Foundation (supra) while holding that where revisionary authority opined that further enquiry was required such enquiry s…

M/S Uma Glass Works, Firozabad vs. Pr.CIT.-1, Agra

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2014-15 and

ITA 17/AGR/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra02 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

M/S Metro Development, Mumbai vs. PCIT -27, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 635/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. Metro Development Vs. Pr. Commissioner of Plot No.2, 3rd Floor Income Tax, Mumbai – 27 Room No.401, 3rd Floor The Ambiance Court 6th Tower,VSRCCL Unit No.302, Sector 19D Vashi, Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 Navi Mumbai – 400 703 703 PAN/GIR No.AAUFM1259R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Ritika Agarwal Revenue by Shri T. Shankar Date of Hearing 27/09/2022 Date of Pronouncement 31/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): This appeal in ITA No.635/Mum/2022 fo…

Janata Traders, Gadag vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

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

ITA 401/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Girija, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. G. Manoj Kumar, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69A

…his return and fails to make enquiries or examine the genuineness of the claim which are called for in the circumstances of the case. In taking the aforesaid view, we are supported by the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT (67 ITR 84) (SC), Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT (88 ITR 323) (SC), and Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd's case ( 243 ITR 83) (SC). 6.4 In Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. case the Hon'ble Court has held as under: “There can be no doubt that the provision cannot be invoked to correct each and every type of mistake or error committed by the Assessing Officer, it is onl…

Bbr Projects Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO Ward-1(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 113/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S.Bbr Projects Private Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward – 1(14), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaccb7153J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Vijay Bhaskar Reddy – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.10.2022

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Bhaskar Reddy –

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 37Section 40

…e, the order passed by the ld.PCIT was correct. It was submitted that the Revenue had filed the paper book whereby the Revenue seek to rely upon the following decisions : 1. Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal Vs. CIT - 88 ITR 323 (SC) 2. Rampyari Devi Saraogi Vs. CIT – 67 ITR 84 (SC) 3. Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. ACIT – 99 ITR 375 (Delhi) 4. Radiant Life Care Mumbai Pvt. Ltd. Vs. PCIT, Mumbai – ITA Nos.895 & 896/Mum/2021 dt.31.05.2022. 16. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. Whether the jurisdiction exercised by the ld.PCIT was correct or not, it is essential to point out whether the order…

Hindustan Sales Industrial Corporation, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 94/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CA &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 94/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2016-17 cuke Hindustan Sales Industrial Corporation The Pr. CIT Vs. 1193, Churukon Ka Rasta, SMS Highway Jaipur-1 Jaipur – 302 001 Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAAFH 9961 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Rajeev Sogani, C…

Bharat Tirtha Rice Mill, Burdwan East vs. PCIT, Asansol

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 373/KOL/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Oct 2022AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 249Section 253Section 263Section 3Section 5

…that 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 v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 & Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwai v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC). The reasoning for this proposition has 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 cancelling the assessment order of the Income-…

M/S Avtil Enterprises Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle CIT -5, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 734/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 3

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI BASKARAN BR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.734/Mum/2022 (A.Y. 2017-18) M/s AVTIL Vs. PCIT-5 Enterprises Limited Room No. 515, 1/204, Navjivan Aaykar Bhavan, Society, Lamington Maharishi Karve Road, Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400020 400008 PAN AACCA8482H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Devang Divecha Department by Smt Shailja Rai Date of Hearing 13.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement 10.10.2022 O R D E R PER KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL:- This appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the order of the ld. PCIT passed u/s 2…

M/S Sudhir Forgings (P) Ltd., Ludhiana vs. Pr. CIT-3, Ludhiana

The appeal of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 505/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 505/Chd/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2013-14

For Appellant: None (Adj. Application)For Respondent: Sh. Sarabjeet Singh, CIT DR

Section 14ASection 263Section 68

…ween the cases of ITA No. 505-Chd-2018 (A.Y. 2013-14) - M/s Sudhir Forgings (P) Ltd., Ludhiana 19 "inadequate inquiry" and "lack of inquiry" by also considering the ratio of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rampyari Devi Sarogi vs CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) and Tara Devi Aggarwal vs CIT (1973) 88 ITR 323 (SC) and held that it is incumbent upon the ITO to further investigate the facts stated in the return when circumstances would make such an inquiry prudent and the word "erroneous" in Section 263 includes failure to make such an inquiry. It was further held that the order becomes erroneous…

Nepal Singh Rathod (HUF), Hubli vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

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

ITA 400/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep &For Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…his return and fails to make enquiries or examine the genuineness of the claim which are called for in the circumstances of the case. In taking the aforesaid view, we are supported by the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT (67 ITR 84) (SC), Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT (88 ITR 323) (SC), and Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd's case ( 243 ITR 83) (SC). 7.4 In Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. case the Hon'ble Court has held as under: Nepal Singh Rathod (HUF), Hubli Page 11 of 33 “There can be no doubt that the provision cannot be invoked to correct each and every type of mistake or error…

Shri Manoj B. Mansukhani, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 50/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…re the assessment has been completed without conducting any inquiries tantamount to erroneous orders as also order prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. For such proposition of law. Reliance is made on following cases: 1. Rampyari Devi Sarogi Vs. 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 Cre…

M/S. Jai Maa Hiral Enterprise, Khambhaliya vs. The Pr. CIT, Jamnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 128/RJT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member And Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member Assessment Year 2017-18 M/s. Jai Maa Hiral The Pr. Commissioner of Enterprise, Bhagwati Mill Income Tax, Compound, Khambhalia, Vs Jamnagar Dev Bhumi, (Respondent) Dwarka-361306 PAN: AAKFJ5947R (Appellant) Assessee by: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R. Revenue by: Shri Aarsi Prasad, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 07-07-2022 Date of pronouncement : 21-09-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER BENCH:- This is an appeal filed by the assessee for A.Y. 2017-18 against the order of the ld. Prin…

C.Jebamani, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corp Ward 11(4), Chennai

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

ITA 157/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.157/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16 V. Mr.C.Jebamani, The Income Tax Officer, 62/1, Peters Road, Non-Corporate Ward-11(4), Royapettah, Chennai. Chennai. [Pan: Acnpj 6400 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.T.Vasudevan, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.M.Rajan, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14.09.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.09.2022

For Respondent: Mr.M.Rajan, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263

…e 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 case of 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 his 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…

Haris Kalandan Mohammed, Mangaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed on merits

ITA 435/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Haris Kalandan Mohammed, The Principal D.No. 23-10-810, Commissioner Of Umay Bagh, Income Tax 1St Cross, [Central], Yemmekere, Vs. Bengaluru. Mangaluru – 575 001. Pan: Abjph9234P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate : Shri Praveen Karanth, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-09-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 22/03/2022 Passed By Ld.Pr.Cit U/S. 263 For A.Y. 2018-19 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of Revision Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [Central], Bengaluru, Under Section 263 Of The Act Dated 22/03/2022, In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Not Justified In Law & On Facts To Set Aside The Assessment

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate

Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153DSection 263Section 68

…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].” 11. In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the Ld.PCIT is not justified in set aside assessment order passed u/s. 143(3). The Ld.AO had conducted enquiry based on the return filed in lieu of the notices issued post search action. A specific…

Csb Bank Ltd., Thrissur vs. DCIT Circle 1(1) & Tps Thrissur, Thrissur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 563/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Sept 2022AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri C. Naresh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shantam Bose, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 438Section 43B

…his return and fails to make enquiries or examine the genuineness of the claim which are called for in the circumstances of the case. In taking the aforesaid view, we are supported by the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT (67 ITR 84) (SC), Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT (88 ITR 323) (SC), and Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd's case ( 243 ITR 83) (SC). 8. In Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. case the Hon'ble Court has held as under: “There can be no doubt that the provision cannot be invoked to correct each and every type of mistake or error committed by the Assessing Officer, it is only…

Csb Bank Ltd ( Formerly the Catholic Srian Bank Ltd, Thrissur vs. The Pr CIT, Kozhikkode

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 84/COCH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri C. Naresh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shantam Bose, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 438Section 43B

…his return and fails to make enquiries or examine the genuineness of the claim which are called for in the circumstances of the case. In taking the aforesaid view, we are supported by the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT (67 ITR 84) (SC), Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT (88 ITR 323) (SC), and Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd's case ( 243 ITR 83) (SC). 8. In Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. case the Hon'ble Court has held as under: “There can be no doubt that the provision cannot be invoked to correct each and every type of mistake or error committed by the Assessing Officer, it is only…

Dishant Jain, Gadag vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 384/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S.V Ravishankar, Advocate by RevenueFor Respondent: Shri Binod Kumar Singh, CIT (DR) by

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263

…e genuineness of the claim which are called for in the circumstances of the case In taking the aforesaid view, we are supported by the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT[1968] 67 !TR 84. Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT[1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC), and Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. 's case (supra). 5 Considering the facts discussed above, it is clear that the Assessing Officer has not conducted necessary enquiries to examine the source of cash deposited during the year. The Page 7 of 13 assessee also failed to furnish a satisfactory explanation regarding the source of cash deposited in…

Nisha Sharma, Narsingpur vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal is dismissed

ITA 50/JAB/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Jabalpur12 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nitin Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shravan Kumar Gotru, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…ner. Case law in the matter is legion, each decision having been rendered in the fact settings of that specific case. We in 5 | P a g e , ITA No. 50/JAB/2022 (AY: 2017-18) Nisha Sharma v. Pr. CIT fact find the decisions in Rampyari Devi Sarogi v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 (SC) and Deekap Kumar Garg (supra) as squarely applicable in the facts of the instant case. 5. We, in view of the foregoing, find no reason to interfere with the impugned order and, accordingly, decline to. 6. In the result, the assessee‟s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in open Court on September 29, 2022 (Manomohan Das) (Sanjay Arora) Judi…