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 366,459 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

Shri Nitin A Shirgurkar, Belgavi vs. Pr. CIT, Hubbali

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowe

ITA 77/PAN/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 May 2022AY 2015-16

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

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 194A(3)(iii)Section 194A(3)(iv)Section 263Section 40

…by the Assessing Officer accepting the same as such will be erroneous erroneous erroneous and and and prejudicial prejudicial prejudicial to to to the the the interests interests interests of of of the the the Re Re Revenue. RampyarideviSaraogi v. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) and in Smt. Tara Devi RampyarideviSaraogi v. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) and in Smt. Tara Devi RampyarideviSaraogi v. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) and in Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal V. CIT (1973) 88 ITR 323 (SC)". Aggarwal V. CIT (1973) 88 ITR 323 (SC)". 25. In Max India Ltd. (3 Supra), reiterated the view in Malabar Industrial 25. In Max India Ltd. (3…

Cygnus Vanijya Private Limited, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-11(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 361/KOL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 May 2022AY 2015-16

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

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 26Section 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] 4. 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…

Shobha Ramchandra Chaudhari, Yawal vs. Principle Commissioner of Income-Tax - 1, Nashik

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 176/PUN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: The A.O The Assessee Had Filed Copies Of 7/12 Extracts, Bank Account Details & Pages Of Diary, Where The Assessee Had Noted The Details Of Transactions Regarding Agricultural Income.

For Respondent: Shri Sardar Singh Meena (through physical)

Section 263

…there is anything wrong with the order if all the facts stated therein are assumed to be correct. In the said judgment, Hon‟ble Delhi High Court has referred to earlier decisions of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Rampyari Devi Saraogi Vs. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) and Tara Devi Aggrawal Vs. CITY (1973) 88 ITR 323 (SC) wherein it has been held that where the A.O has accepted a particular contention/issue without any inquiry or evidence whatsoever, the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The aforesaid observation has to be understood in the light of the present case, where…

Masthi Gowda P, Mandya vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore-3, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 367/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Srinivasa T Bidari, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44A

…a sum not earned by a person is assessed as income in his hands on his so offering, the order passed by the AO 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 ITA No.367 /Bang/2021 Page 10 of 18 Aggarwal v. Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal [88 ITR 323]." 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly laid down that both the conditions, viz., the assessment order is erroneous and further it is prejudicial to the interests of revenue are required to be satisfied for the purpose…

Manjunatha, K R Pet vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore-3, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 364/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Srinivasa T Bidari, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44A

…a sum not earned by a person is assessed as income in his hands on his so offering, the order passed by the AO 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 v. Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal [88 ITR 323]." ITA No.364 /Bang/2021 Page 10 of 17 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly laid down that both the conditions, viz., the assessment order is erroneous and further it is prejudicial to the interests of revenue are required to be satisfied for the purpose o…

Spml Infra Limited, New Delhi vs. PCIT-1, Kolkata

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 510/KOL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Manish Borad)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 80I

…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] 8.3. 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…

Smt. Jyoti Ashok Kotecha vs. C.I.T.-(Central), Nagpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 258/NAG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri J. P. Chadraker

Section 127Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 292B

…the transactions with M/s. Religare Securities Ltd., in the light of the incriminating material received from the Investigation Wing of the Department placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs. CIT, 67 ITR 84 (SC), the ld. CIT (Central) held that when the assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer without holding necessary enquiry rendered the assessment is “erroneous”. Accordingly, the ld. CIT (Central) set-aside the assessment to the file of the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment after making proper enquiry and after affording reasonable…

Smt. Meena Dilip Kotecha vs. C.I.T.-(Central), Nagpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 257/NAG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri J. P. Chadraker

Section 127Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 292B

ACIT - 17(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Anand Jaikumar Jain, Mumbai

ITA 3823/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Singh

Section 131(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

…decisions in support of his arguments, they are: - a. CIT v. S.V. Sreenivasan [2018] 404 ITR 433 (Madras) b. Smt Dayawanti v. CIT [2017] 390 ITR 496 (Del.) c. Smt. Vasantibai N. Shah v. CIT [1995] 213 ITR 805 (Bombay). d. Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC) e. S. P. Jaiswal v. CIT [1973] 224 ITR 619 (SC) 14. On the other hand, Ld. AR submitted that the real issue to be decided in the present case is not as to whether the seized documents are meticulous or complete. The real issue to be decided is as to whether the documents found from the premises of third party can be relied upon for making th…

ACIT - 17(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Anand Jaikumar Jain, Mumbai

ITA 3822/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Singh

Section 131(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

ACIT - 17(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Anand Jaikumar Jain, Mumbai

ITA 3821/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Singh

Section 131(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

ACIT - 17(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Anand Jaikumar Jain, Mumbai

ITA 3820/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Singh

Section 131(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

Chennai Central Cooperative Bank Ltd, Chennai vs. PCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 176/CHNY/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.176/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr.Y.Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Mr.M. Rajan, CIT

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 ase 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 asseessee, the Assessing Officer has neither applied his mind nor made any enquiry called for all required details to come to a proper conclusion. In fact, many of the explanation given by the assessee during the pr…

Karan Polymers Pvt Ltd, Kolkata vs. PCIT-2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as per the terms indicated herein above

ITA 270/KOL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Aby T. Varkey & Sri Manish Borad)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 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] 9.3. 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…

Raj Kishore Prusty, Kendrapara vs. Pr. CIT-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 46/CTK/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2016-17 Raj Kishore Prusty,At: Nuapatna, Raj Kishore Prusty,At: Nuapatna, Vs. Pr. Cit, Bhubaneswar Pr. Cit, Bhubaneswar-1 Po: Chandol, Dist: Kendrapara Po: Chandol, Dist: Kendrapara Pan/Gir No. No.Atdpp 8328 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.Parida, Ca D.Parida, Ca Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Goutam, Manoj Kumar Goutam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 8 /3/ 20 / 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/ /4/2022 O R D E R Per C.M.Garg G, Jm This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Pr. Cit-1, Bhubaneswar 1, Bhubaneswar U/S.263 Of The Act Dated 26.3.2021 U/S.263 Of The Act Dated 26.3.2021 For The Assessment Year .2016-17. 17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri D.Parida, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Goutam

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

…ut making inquiries or verification which should have been made;........................... The position is a mere affirmation of what has been confirmed by the Apex court and several HCs earlier & few of such decisions beg mentioning. In Rampyari Devi Sarogi 67 ITR 84(SC) and Smt. Taradevi Agarwal 88 ITR 323(SC), it was held that lack of enquiry or due verification at the relevant time by the AO would satisfy the requirements of the provision of Sec 263. Where an Assessing Officer, who is supposed to protect the interest of revenue as a tax collector and does not perform his job in the right spirit and has passe…

M/S. Swapna Motors Private Ltd., Cuttack vs. CIT, Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 251/CTK/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2010-2011 2011 M/S. Swapna Motors Pvt Ltd., M/S. Swapna Motors Pvt Ltd., Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Asst. Commissioner Of Income Friends Colony, Cuttack Friends Colony, Cuttack Tax, Tax, Circle Circle-2(1), Arunodoya Nagar, Cuttack Nagar, Cuttack Pan/Gir No. No.Aafcs 1450 A (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri M.K.Goutam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 30 /3/ 20 / 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05 / /4/2022 O R D E R Per C.M.Garg G, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Goutam

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

…the interest of revenue' are fulfilled. In view of the above, it is clear that this is a case where no investigation was made by the AO. Reference is made to the rulings given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramapyari Devi Sarogi Vrs. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) and Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal Vrs. CIT reported in 88 ITR 323 (SC) (1973) in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that lack of enquiry or verification at the relevant time by the Assessing Officer would constitute prejudice to the interest of revenue and would involve error of facts and law. It was held by the jurisdictional High Court in the c…

Prabhakar Manjaji Thakre vs. Principoal C.I.T.-1, Nagpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 230/NAG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri J.P. Chandraker

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 201Section 263Section 40Section 54E

…egedly changed report of the Serious Fraud Investigation Office would not dent the exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner under section 263. The Commissioner was correct in setting aside the assessment order. Followed Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC). (AY. 2006-07, 2007-08). 16. Similarly, the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. (2017) 85 Taxmann.com 10 (Bom) observed as under: 13. The above issue which comes for our consideration is, did the Assessing Officer consider and examine the claim of the respondent before allowing a claim for deduction unde…

Facit Sales(P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT, Kol-5, Kolkata

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

ITA 406/KOL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Manish Borad)

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

…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] 10.3. 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 tha…

Shri Saleem Parvez, Bhopal vs. PCIT -1, Bhopal

In the result this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 248/IND/2021[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Indore09 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani(Virtual Hearing) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Saleem Parvez Pcit-1 Bhopal Bhopal बनाम/ P.A.No. Acyps8006L Vs. Appellant (Assessee) Respondent (Revenue) Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpandey, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 22 / 02 / 2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09 /03/ 2022 आदेश / O R D E R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…asons 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 Devi 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 in erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 2. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) - Hon'ble Supreme court has held that non-application of mind by the ass…

M/S Volvo India Pvt. Ltd., Hosakote vs. CIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 687/BANG/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jan 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Pavan Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment year : 2008-09 M/s. Volvo India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Commissioner of Yalachanahally, Income Tax, Tavarekere Post, Large Taxpayers Unit (LTU), Hoskote – 562 122. Bangalore. Bangalore Dist. PAN: AAACV 6747N APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Pavan Kumar, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 08.12.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 27.12.2021 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member This appeal by…