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.

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 84)

Shri Shaligram Barod, Indore vs. Pr. CIT-1, Indore

ITA 625/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble’ Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Shri Shaligram Barod, Pr. Cit-I, Ah/29, Hig, Sukhliya Indore बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. Ahfpp4068H Appellant By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit-Dr

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)Section 54Section 54BSection 54FSection 54F(1)

…der and also placed reliance on the following decisions: s. Reported CASE LAW No. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vis Commissioner of 243 ITR 83 (SC) Income 1 Tax 2. Smt. Taradevi Aggrawa1 Vis Commissioner 88 ITR 323 (SC) Rampyaridevi Saraogi V Is Commissioner of 67 ITR 84 Income Tax 3 (SC) Commissioner of Income Tax Vis Nagesh 345 ITR 135 Knitwears Pvt. Ltd. 4 (Delhi HC) Gee Vee Enterprises Vis Addl. Commissioner of 99 ITR 375 (Delhi HC) Income Tax 5 Bhushan Steel Ltd. Vis Asstt. Commissioner of IT AT A Bench Delhi lncome Tax 6 Commissioner of Income-tax v.Deepak Kumar 299 ITR 435 (Madhya Garg 7. Pradesh) Commiss…

Hill Queen Investment Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. PCIT-2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 643/KOL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Sri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Hill Queen Investment (P) Ltd...……………………....................................……………..…….............Appellant Surobala Apartments Flat No. 202 3Rd Floor Block-B Rekhjuani, Bhatinda Rajarhat Kolkata – 700 135 [Pan : Aaacj 2324 P] Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -2, Kolkata..................…………...............................…......Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Devi Sharan Singh, Cit, D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 6Th, 2021 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 21St, 2021 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 2, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’), Dt. 20/03/2020, For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. There Is A Delay Of 223 (Two Hundred Twenty Three) Days In Filing Of This Appeal By The Assessee. After Perusing The Petition For Condonation For Delay, We Are Convinced That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause In Filing The Appeal In Time. Hence, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal. 3. The Assessee Is A Company & Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2015-16, Disclosing Total Income Of Rs.20,40,470/- On 28/09/2015. The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny For The Following Reasons:- “(I) Mismatch In Sales Turnover Reported In Audit Report & Itr (Ii) Mismatch In Amount Paid To Related Persons U/S 40A(2)(B) Reported In Audit Report & Itr (Iii) Suspicious Sale Transaction In Shares (Penny Stock Tab In Its)”

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

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

Satish Kumar Lakhmani, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT-10, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 260/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"ी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. टी. वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263

…rtinent to note that the failure on the part of the Assessing Officer to make an enquiry on a relevant issue/point would render the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as decided in the following cases by various courts: (1968) 67 ITR 84(SC) Ram Pyari Devi Saraogi (1973) 88 ITR 323(SC) Tara Devi Aggarwal (1975) 99 ITR 375(Delhi) Gee Vee enterprises (1966) 220 ITR 657 (Mad) K.A. Ramaswami Chettiar & Another (1966) 220 ITR 456 (Delhi) Duggal and Co. (1966) 220 ITR 167 (MP) Mahavar Traders (1995) 213 ITR 843 (Raj) Emery Stone Mfg. Co. (1992) 198 ITR 611 (Ker) Malabar Industrial Co…

Nextgen Vyapaar, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT-2, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1176/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Apr 2021AY 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…cepting the same as such will be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. will be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. will be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. RampyarideviSaraogi v. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) and RampyarideviSaraogi v. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) and in Smt. Tara Devi 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. Max India Ltd. (3 Supra), reiterated the view in Malabar Industrial Malabar Industrial Co.Ltd. (2 Supra) and observed that every loss of Revenue as…

S. Narendrakumar & Co., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT. Circle- 27, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1605/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43(5)Section 43(5)(e)

…o following case laws :- • Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC), • Bismillah Trading Co. v. Intelligence Officer [2001] 248 ITR 292 (Ker.) • Venkatakrishna Rice Co. Vs. CIT (1987) 163 ITR 129 (Mad) • Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal Vs. CIT (1973) 88 ITR 323(SC) • Thalibai F. Jain Vs. ITO (1975) 101 ITR 1 (Kar.) 6. He referred to Explanation 1 below subsection (1) of section 263 and held as under :- “In view of the above and also in light of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the Assessing officer had allowed loss of Rs.1,28,39,534/-incurred in commodity derivatives transaction…

The Peerless Gen. Fin. & Inv. Co. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 892/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 50

…ITA No. 892/KOL/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 The Peerless General Finance & Investment Company Limited IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-President & Shri A.T. Varkey, Judicial Member I.T.A. No. 892/KOL/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 The Peerless General Finance & Investment Company Limited,.... Appellant Peerless Bhavan, 3, Esplanade East, Kolkata-700069 [PAN:AABCT3043L] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,............................................ Respondent Circle-3(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appear…

M/S. Biocon Limited, Bengaluru vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1859/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35

…nuineness of the claim which is called for in the circumstances of the case. This view is supported by the judgments in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (2000) 159 CTR (SC) 1 : (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC), Rampyari Devi Saraogi Page 26 of 30 vs. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) and Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal vs. CIT 1973 CTR (SC) 107 : (1973) 88 ITR 323 (SC). 9. Perusal of the assessment order passed by the AO does not show any application of mind on his part. This is a case where the AO mechanically accepted what the assessee wanted him to accept without any application of mind or proper enquiry. The evidence availabl…

Sri Lalit Murarka, Cuttack vs. ITO, Cuttack

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

ITA 409/CTK/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack10 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.188 & 409/Ctk/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Sri Lalit Murarka, Vs. Cit, Cuttack Prop- M/S Subham, Kanika Chhak, Cuttack Pan No. : Apmpm 9441 C (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.N.Sahu/Somnath Sahoo, Advs िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/03/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09/03/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: The Assessee Has Filed These Two Appeals I.E.

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Sahu/Somnath Sahoo, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263Section 263(1)

…ble because an incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law will satisfy the requirement of the order being erroneous. 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 of facts and law. It was held by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Umashankar Rice Mills Vs. CIT reported in 187 ITR 638(Ori)that, where the Commissioner felt that proper enquiry was not made by th…

Lalit Murarka, Cuttack vs. CIT, Cuttack

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

ITA 188/CTK/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack10 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.188 & 409/Ctk/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Sri Lalit Murarka, Vs. Cit, Cuttack Prop- M/S Subham, Kanika Chhak, Cuttack Pan No. : Apmpm 9441 C (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.N.Sahu/Somnath Sahoo, Advs िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/03/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09/03/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: The Assessee Has Filed These Two Appeals I.E.

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Sahu/Somnath Sahoo, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263Section 263(1)

…ble because an incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law will satisfy the requirement of the order being erroneous. 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 of facts and law. It was held by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Umashankar Rice Mills Vs. CIT reported in 187 ITR 638(Ori)that, where the Commissioner felt that proper enquiry was not made by th…

M/S Metal Craft Industries Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-12(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 800/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 68

…cepting the same as such will be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. will be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. will be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the 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 (197 Aggarwal V. CIT (1973) 88 ITR 323 (SC)". 24 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Metal Craft Industries Pvt. Ltd M/s. Metal Craft Industries Pvt. Ltd. 25. In Max Ind…

Mr. Abhisar Sharma, Noida vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3285/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2005-06 Mr. Abhisar Sharma, Vs Dcit, B-602, Plot No.F-2, Circle-64(1), The Crescent, B-Block, Room No.314, Sector-50, Pratyakshkar Bhawan, Noida. Civic Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aigps3840N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate & Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca Revenue By : Shri J.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr. Date Of Hearing : 12.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30Th March, 2015 Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act By The Pcit-22, Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2005-06. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 22Nd July, 2005 Declaring Income Of Rs.9,00,355/-. The Assessee In The Return Of Income Had Declared Income From Salary At Rs.9,81,964/- & Loss From House Property At Rs.81,609/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 4Th July, 2006 At The Same Income. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Dated 27Th March, 2012 After Obtaining Prior Approval Of The Addl. Cit, Range-7, New Delhi, Vide His Letter No.526 Dated 27Th March, 2012. The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 147/143(3) On 28Th March, 2013, Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.11,03,270/- As Against The Returned Income Of Rs.9,00,355/- Wherein He Made The Following Additions:-

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 127Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 17Section 17(2)Section 263Section 68Section 69C

…nue, and in support, the following relevant judicial views exist for supporting necessary action u/s 263 of the IT Act, 1961 against the assessment order dated 28.03.2013 passed u/s 147/143(3) for A.Y 2005-06 in this case: (1) Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs CIT(SC) 67 ITR 84 (2) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs CIT(SC) 243 ITR 83 (3) Swarup Vegetable Products Industrial Ltd. CIT (AIL) 187 ITR 412 (4) CIT vs Eastern Medikit Ltd. (Del) 58 DTR 265; 337 ITR 56. (12) As against the above noted findings, It is observed from the written submissions made by assessee that objections on the following points, relevant to the notice…

Cuttack Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Cuttack vs. Principal CIT, Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 184/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack21 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri N.R.Biswal, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 36(1)(via)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

…5 ITA No.1 84/CTK/201 9 Assessm ent Y ear : 20 14- 15 reliance placed by ld CIT DR on various decisions including the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Company Ltd vs CIT, 243 ITR 83 (SC) and Smt. Taradevi Agarwal vs CIT, 88 ITR 323 (SC) and Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT vs Jawahar Bhattacharjee, 20 taxmann.com 652 is misplaced as the facts and circumstances of the present case are clearly dissimilar and distinguishable and hence, not applicable in favour of the revenue. 12. On careful consideration of the rival submissions, we note that the Ld PCIT in paras…

Swami Keshwanand Shikshan Sansthan, Sikar vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed partly

ITA 273/JPR/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 273/Jp/2020 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Swami Keshwanand Sikshan Cuke C.I.T. (Exemption), Vs. Sansthan, Jaipur (Rajasthan). N.H.11, Bhadhadhar, Sikar-332315 (Raj) Pan No.: Aafts 2816 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shafi Mohammed Chouhan (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 21/10/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(Exemption), Jaipur Dated 16/03/2020 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2010-11, Wherein The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur Is Illegal & Against The Law Because The Ld. Assessing Officer Has Examined & Considered The Matter Involved In This Order. 2. That The Donation So Received Was Received For A Specific Purpose & Use, Hence It Was Corpus Donation. The Corpus Donation Cannot Be Treated As Part Of Income & Expenditure Account.

For Appellant: Shri Shafi Mohammed Chouhan (Adv)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT-DR)

Section 148Section 263

…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. (See Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 (SC) and in Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 3 SCC 482)". In view of the above discussion, it must be held that every loss of the revenue as a consequence of the order of the assessing officer cannot be treated prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Where two views 24 ITA 273/JP/2020_ Swami Keshwanand Sikshan Sansthan Vs CIT(E) are possible…