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

Smt. Usha Devi Modi, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-10(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 874/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S. S.Godara)

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA (Virtual Court) (Before Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member & Sri S. S.Godara, Judicial Member) I.T.A. No. 874/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Usha Devi Modi.....................................................................................................Appellant [PAN: ADTPM 5364 K] Vs. ITO, Ward-10(4), Kolkata....………………..…..........................................................Respondent Appearances by: Shri S. M. Surana, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the Revenue. Sh. Imokaba Jamir, CIT(DR), appeared on behalf of the Assessee.…

Nitson & Amitsu Private Limited, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-1(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 160/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA (Virtual Court) (Before Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member & Sri Aby T. Varkey, Judicial Member) I.T.A. No. 160/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Nitson & Amitsu Pvt. Ltd...................................................................................................Appellant [PAN: AAACN 9866 G] Vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2), Kolkata.....………………..…...............................................................Respondent Appearances by: Sh. Soumitra Choudhury, Adv., appeared on behalf of the Assessee. Sh. Sandeep Chaube, CIT, appeared on behalf of the…

Smt. Shweta Agrawal, Indore vs. The Pr. CIT-2, Indore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 280/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2014-15

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

…is 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 JJ.e1.Ji Saraoqiu •. CIT 119681671 TR 84 (SC) and in Smt. Tara Aggarwal v. CIT {19731 88 ITR 323 (SC)". 4.3] Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT us. Sun Beam Auto reported in 227 CTR 113 has pointed out a distinction between lack of inquiry and inadequate inquiry. If there is a lack of enquiry, then the assessment order can be branded as erroneous. The following observations of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court c worth to note:- "12. We ha…

M/S. Provimi Animal Nutrition India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2215/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35

…ITA No.2215/Bang/2019 M/s. Provimi Animal Nutrition India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. Provimi Animal Nutrition India Pvt. Ltd. IS 40, KHB Industrial Area Yelahanka New Town Vs. Principal CIT-5 Bangalore-560 058 Bangalore PAN NO : AAACT4909N APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Chavali Narayan, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R. Date of Hearing : 02.12.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 03.12.2020 O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOU…

Ravish Lakhmani, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT - 10, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 47/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…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. -…

Rachit Lakhmani, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT - 10, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 46/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…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. -…

Jaikishan Lakhmani, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT - 10, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 45/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…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. -…

Reeta Lakhmani, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT - 10, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 44/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…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. -…

Gopichand Lakhmani, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT - 10, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 43/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…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. -…

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 42/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…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. -…

Ritin Lakhmani, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT - 10, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 41/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…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. -…

Amar Singh Chaudhary, Jabalpur vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 28/JAB/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur27 Oct 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Nrs Ganesan&Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 153A(1)Section 153CSection 263Section 48

…decisions, including by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, without in any manner meeting those cited by the other, being By the Revenue (per the impugned order) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) Rampyari Devi Sarogi vs. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 (SC) CIT v. Deepak Kumar Garg [2007] 299 ITR 435 (MP) CIT v. Himachal Pradesh Financial Corp.[2010]186 Taxman 105 (HP) Swarup Vegetable Products v. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 412 (All) Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Del) By the assessee CIT v. Ratlam Coal Ash Co. [1988] 171 ITR 141 (MP) CIT v. Krishna Capbox (P.) Ltd. [2015] 372 ITR 3…

M/S Mbl Infrastructures Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 427/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, V.P & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.427/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Mbl Infrastructure Ltd. Vs Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Kolkata . 1St Floor, Divine Bliss, 2/3, Judges Court Road, Kolkata – 700027. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccm0564C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Ram Bilash Meena, Cit(Dr) सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 06/10/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/10/2020

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ram Bilash Meena, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 35DSection 80Section 80I

…en 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 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:- "These…

Shri. K. Muniraju, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner Income Tax, Central, Bangalore

In the result appeals filed by assessee for asst

ITA 1376/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A.K Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev C Nulvi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dilip Reddy, Standing Counsel to Dept. (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…y loss of revenue as a consequence of such order of the Assessing Officer has be treated as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. At this juncture we also refer to decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ram Pyari Devi Sagar Vs. CIT reported in (1968) 67 ITR 84 and Taradevi Agarwal Vs. CIT reported in (1973) 88 ITR 323, wherein, it is held that, mere failure to make enquiries would make the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue. These principles laid down in aforesaid decision were reiterated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in 'CIT v. Max India Ltd. reported in 295 ITR 282 and recentl…

Kaushal Kishore Bihani, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-45(1), Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 690/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year: 2014-15

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

…d that mere non-enquiry would also render a particular order passed by lower authority as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. This position has been clearly confirmed by Hon'blc Supreme Court in the case of Rampyari Devi Saraogi V. CIT(1968) 67 ITR 84 & Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal V. CIT(1973) 88 ITR 3Z3(SC). The reasoning for this proposition has been explained by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of GEE VEE Enterprise Vs. 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 Tax…

The West Bengal National University of Juridicial Science, Kolkata vs. CIT(Exemption), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2643/KOL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Sept 2020AY 2016-17
Section 10Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 2Section 263

…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 RampyarideviSaraogi v. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) and in Smt. Tara 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. Max India Ltd. (3 Supra), reiterated the view in Malabar Industrial Malabar Industrial…

Shri Nitin Sharma, Jabalpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -2, Jabalpur

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 25/JAB/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Sanjay Arora

Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A(1)Section 153CSection 153C(1)Section 153DSection 263Section 7(1)

…MP)), holding like-wise in different fact settings. Reference, however, is being made only to the decision in Gee Vee Enterprises v. CIT (Addl.) [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Del), wherein reliance has been placed on the decisions in Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 (SC) and Tara Devi Agarwal (supra), also referred to in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (supra) and Jawahar Bhattacharjee (supra). As explained therein: ‘It is not necessary for the Commissioner to make further inquiries before cancelling the assessment order of the Income-tax Officer. The Commissioner can regard the order as erroneous on the ground th…

Anindita Steels Ltd., Jharkhand vs. Pr.CIT-2, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2225/KOL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Sept 2020AY 2009-10
Section 143(3)Section 263

…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)". 25. In Max India Ltd. Max India Ltd. (3 Supra), reiterated the view in Malabar Industrial Malabar Industrial Co.Ltd. (2…

Hindumal Balmukund Investment Co.Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax-1, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 562/PUN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Aug 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 562/Pun/2019 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Hindumal Balmukund Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. 2Nd Floor, Lohia Jain House, Bhandarkar Road, Pune-411 004 Pan : Aaach4226Q .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Pune. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri V.L. JainFor Respondent: Smt. Kesang V. Sherpa
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 4Section 80I

…he ITO was erroneous was irresistible. Therefore, the High Court had rightly held that the exercise of the jurisdiction by the Commissioner under section 263(1) was justified.” 7.3 Further, the Supreme Court in the case of Rampyari Devi Sarogi vs. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) and Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT (1973) 88 ITR 323 (SC) 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. 8. We also find that the Assessing Officer while accepting the documents submitted by the…

Pushpa Devi Sonthalia, Kolkata vs. Principal CIT, Kolkata - 2, Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 958/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jun 2020AY 2013-14
Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 263

…here 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. Rampyaridevi Saraogi v. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) and in Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal V. CIT (1973) 88 ITR 323 (SC)". 25. In Max India Ltd. (3 Supra), reiterated the view in Malabar Industrial Co.Ltd. (2 Supra) and observed that every loss of Revenue as a consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. For example, when an Income T…