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

M/S. Sanee Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal vs. The Pr CIT, Bhopal

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 742/IND/2018[15-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore01 Jun 2020

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Sanee Infrastructure Pr.Cit-2, Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Bhopal D-1, Machna Colony, 6 No Bus Stop, Bhopal (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Aagcs8307M Appellant By Shri Arun Jain, Ca Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit Date Of Hearing 12.03.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 01.06.2020 O R D E R

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

…reasons 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 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 2.Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. V.CIT(2000) 243 [TR 83 (SC) Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that non-application of mind by the assessing a…

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. Prcit, Gurugram

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed on the issue of the impugned order passed beyond the prescribed time, other issues are left open

ITA 4607/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2020AY 2009-10
For Appellant: ShriSalilKapoor, AdvFor Respondent: ShriRaman Chopra[CIT] –
Section 143Section 144CSection 147Section 263Section 263(2)Section 92C

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

Laxmi Ventures (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -7, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013-2014

ITA 2199/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Laxmi Ventures (India) Pvt. The Principal Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax 7, Mumbai, Aaykar 36/40, Mahalaxmi Bridge Arcade Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mahalaxmi , Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400034 Pan: Aaacl1082G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Haridas Bhat (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rajiv Harit (CIT DR)
Section 133Section 143Section 14ASection 263Section 40Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s Laxmi Ventures (India) Pvt. The Principal Commissioner of Ltd., Income Tax 7, Mumbai, Aaykar 36/40, Mahalaxmi Bridge Arcade Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mahalaxmi , Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400034 PAN: AAACL1082G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Haridas Bhat (AR) Revenue by : Shri Rajiv Harit (CIT DR) Date of Hearing: 05/03/2020 Date of Pronouncement: 20/04/2020 O R D E R PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dat…

M/S. Bhandari Hospital and Research Centre, Indore vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Indore

ITA 355/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Bhandari Hospital & Pr. Cit-(I) Research Centre, Gf-21 & Indore बनाम/ 22, Opp. Meghdoot Garden, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aadfb8151A

Section 131(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 263Section 35A

…replied upon are hereby filed. s. Reported CASE LAW No. 1 Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vis Commissioner of Income Tax 243 ITR 83 (SC) 2. Smt. Taradevi Aggrawal Vis Commissioner of Income Tax 88 ITR 323 (SC) 3 Rampyaridevi Saraogi Vis Commissioner of Income Tax 67 ITR 84 (SC) Commissioner of Income Tax Vis Nagesh Knitwears Pvt. Ltd 345 ITR 135 4 (Delhi HC) [ITA No.355/Ind/2017] [Bhandari Hospital & Research Centre] 5 Gee Vee Enterprises Vis Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax 99 ITR 375 (Delhi HC) 6 Bhushan Steel Ltd. Vis Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax IT AT A ~ench Delhi Commissioner of Income-tax v.Deepak Kumar…

Skan Enterprise, Kolkata vs. Pr.C.I.T.-12, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 840/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2020AY 2014-15
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 (1973 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. (…

Al Champdany Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. Principal CIT - 1, Kolkata

Appeal is disposed off in above terms

ITA 843/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं/I.T.A No.843/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Ai Champdany Industries Ltd. Vs. Pcit-1, Kolkata. C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite- 213, 2Nd Floor, Kol-700069. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacca4860D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Vijay Shankar, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 24/02/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2013-14 Arises Against The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 1, Kolkata’S Order Dated 21.03.2018 Involving Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’). Heard Shri Subash Agarawal, Learned Authorized Representing Assessee & Shri Vijay Shankar, Cit-Dr Appearing At The Revenue’S Behest. 2. Relevant Facts Involved In The Instant Lis Is In Narrow Compass. Both The Learned Representatives Are Ad Idem During The Course Of Hearing That This Assessee A Company Manufacturing & Trading In Jute, Jute Blending, Flax Goods, Had Claimed To Have Been Deriving House Property Income From Various Asset(S) For The Past Very Many Assessment Years. They Invited Our Attention To The Assessing

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Shankar, CIT
Section 24Section 263

…n assessed under the head business income. He has therefore directed the Assessing Officer to frame afresh assessment on the same lines after quoting a catena of judicial precedents Malabar Industries Co. (2000) 243 ITR 83, Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84, Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323(SC), Gee Vee Enterprise vs. Addl. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 375, CIT vs. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products & Camphor Works [1998] 231 ITR 53. This leaves the assessee aggrieved. 4. We have heard Shri Agarwal and Mr. Sankar reiterating both the parties’ respective stands against and in support of the P…

M/S K R Construction, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Central-3, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 7615/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunathak.R.Construction Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Basement, Hinal Residency Income Tax-Central-3 19Th Floor Datta Mandir Road Dahanukar Wadi Air India Building Kandivali(W) Nariman Point Mumbai-400 067 Mumbai-400 021

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 263

…ed by a person is assessed as income in his hands on his so offering me order passed by the 22 K.R.Construction Assessing Officer accepting the same as such will be erroneous and prejudice to the interests of the Revenue. Rarnpyari Devi Saraogi v. ClT [1968] 67 ITR 84(SC) and in Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT[1973] 88ITR 323(SC). In the instant, the Commissioner noted that the Income-tax Officer passed the order of nil assessment without application of mind. Indeed, the High Court recorded the finding That the income-Tax Officer failed to apply his mind to the case in all perspective and the order passed by him…

Maharashtra Engineering, Kolhapur vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax -1, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 859/PUN/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Anil Chaturvedi

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

…claim, it would be just and proper to set aside the assessment completed on 11-3-2016 for the A.Y. 2010- 11 for de-novo examination of facts. This being done in spirit of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Rampyari Devi Saraogi Vs. CIT (1969) 67 ITR 84 (SC) wherein it is held that since the assessee is getting an opportunity of being heard, no prejudice is caused to the assessee if the order is set aside. 13. In the result the assessment order as referred above is set aside.” 6. The learned Pr. CIT also fails to answer the very primary question that if the purchases are going to be treated as b…

Kritika Wires Ltd., Kolkata vs. Pr.C.I.T.-2, Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 709/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2014-15

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 (Del) Gee Vee Enterprises (1966) 220 ITR 657 (Mad) K.A. Ramaswami Cheettiar & Another (1966) 220 ITR 456 (Del) 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. -…

M/S Chengmari Tea Co. Ltd, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-4(1), Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 812/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

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

Section 115JSection 263Section 33A

…le. Investigation should always be faithful and fruitful. Unless all fruitful areas or enquiry are pursued the enquiry cannot be said to have been faithfully conducted " 6.2 The Hon'ble Supreme Court, further, in the case of Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs CIT(1968) 67 ITR 87(SC) and Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal vs CIT(l973)8B ITR323(SC) has held that in absence of proper enquiries, the assessment order would become erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 6.3 The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprise vs Addl. CIT (1975) 99 ITR 375 has also held as under: "The reason is obvious. The posi…

Dena Bank, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse is allowed

ITA 2159/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sooddena Bank Vs. Pcit-2 Room No.344, 3Rd Floor Accounts Department Dena Bank Building Aaykar Bhawan 2Nd Floor M.K.Road 17/B, Horniman Circle Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 023 Pan/Gir No.Aaacd4249B Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…81 (SC)], The AO is not only an adjudicator but also an investigator. He is supposed to be aware of the change in statute and apply it in the background of facts and circumstances of the case. Reliance is placed on following case laws. 25 Dena Bank > {1968) 67 ITR 84 /SCJ Rampyari Devi Baraogi v/s CIT. acceptance without enquiry & evidence. ClTs direction upheld > (173) 88 ITR 323(SC) Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal V.s CIT 263 - applicable for assessment in different hand > {2005)2 SOT 732 Mum.Trib) Recon Oil Industries Ltd vs. JCIT. Non application of mind on inclusion of trading Profit for deduction u/s 80IA warrant…

Bengal Steel Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 11(3), Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 699/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 147Section 148Section 263

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “ए” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “A” KOLKATA Before Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member and Shri S.S.Godara, Judicial Member Assessment Year: 2012-13 Bengal Steel Industries Ltd., Income Tax Officer बनाम / 84/1A, Topsia Road, (S), Ward-11(3), Aayakar V/s. Kolkta-700 046 Bhawan, P-7, [PAN No.AAABCB 0969 P] Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700 096 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Goutam Banerjee, FCA अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri A.K. Nayak, CIT-DR ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 03-12-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 22-01-2020 घोषण…

Nipha Exports Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Principal CIT - 1, Kolkata

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

ITA 873/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

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

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…t 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 Honble Supreme Court in the case of Rampyari Devi Saraogi –vs. – CIT (1968] 67 ITR 84 & Smt. Tara Devi Aggurwal-Vs.-. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC). The reasoning for this proposition has been explained by Hon'bIe 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 In…

Motilal Salecha HUF, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 31, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2943/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Motilal Salecha Huf, Pr. Cit-31, Room No. 301, C-13 44/2, Ground Floor, Suresh Pratyakshakar Bahvan, Bandra Vs. Bhavan, Road No. 6, Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400051. Jawahar Nagar,Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400062. Pan No. Aakhm0433P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. P.J. Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Kumar & Mr. V.Vinod Kumar, DRs
Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Motilal Salecha HUF, Pr. CIT-31, Room No. 301, C-13 44/2, Ground Floor, Suresh Pratyakshakar Bahvan, Bandra Vs. Bhavan, Road No. 6, Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400051. Jawahar Nagar,Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400062. PAN No. AAKHM0433P Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. P.J. Pardiwalla, Sr. Advocate & Mr. Sashank Dundu, AR Revenue by : Mr. Rajesh Kumar & Mr. V.Vinod Kumar, DRs Last Date of Hearing : 18/10/2019 Date of Pronouncement : 13/01/2020 ORD…

M/S. Topgrain Management Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Principal CIT - 1, Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1278/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2013-14 M/S Top Grain V/S. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, 7Th Management Pvt Ltd., Beriwala Building, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Floor, 1/1 Meridith Street, Bhawan,P-7, Kolkata-700 072 Chowringhee Square, [Pan No.Aaact 9889 K] Kolkat-700 069 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 32

…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 Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC). The reasoning for this proposition has been explained by Hon'hle 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-t…

Rissala Decor Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon vs. Pr. CIT, Gurgaon

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 2895/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri M.R. Sahu, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sulekha Vema, CIT(DR)
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…fit case for exercise of revisional powers of the Ld. Pr. CIT under Section 263 of I.T. Act. She further submitted that the judicial precedents in the cases of Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Delhi), Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 (SC) and Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC), referred to by the Ld. Pr. CIT in his impugned revisionary order dated 05.03.2019 passed under Section 263 of I.T. Act, were squarely applicable to the facts of the case. She further placed reliance on the written submissions filed during appellate proceedings in ITAT, which have al…

M/S. Aic Iron Industries Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT-1, Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1332/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.1332/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Aic Iron Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pcit-1, Kolkata 25, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, 4Th Floor, Kolkata – 700013. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccn0217F (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Sunil Surana, Fca Respondent By : Shri Radhey Shyam, Cit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 16/12/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/12/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Arises Against The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Kolkata Dated 12.03.2019 Involving Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. Relevant Facts Involved In The Instant Lis Are In A Very Narrow Compass. The Assessing Officer Has Framed His Regular Assessment In Issue Dated 19.12.16 Disallowing Administrative Expenditure Of Rs.46,420/- Under Rule 8D(2)(Iii) R.W. Section 14A Of The Act. The Pcit Assumed His Revision Jurisdiction Terming The Above Regular Assessment As Erroneous Causing Prejudice To Interest Of The Revenue Since There Were ‘Large Specific Domestic Transactions” & The Assessing Officer Had Completed His Assessment Without Making Any Reference To The Tpo To Determine Arm’S Length Price Thereof. He Quotes Cbdt Instruction No.3/2016 Dated 10.03.16 Regarding Guidelines For Implementation Of Transfer Pricing

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT
Section 14ASection 263Section 40

…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 Aggarwalv. 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-ta…

Shree Krishna Goswami, Kolkata vs. Principal CIT - 2, Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1097/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.1097/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shree Krishna Goswami Vs. Pr. Cit -2, Kolkata C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, 2Nd Floor, Suite213, Kolkata – 700069. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aeopg4309Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Nayak, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 194CSection 263Section 263(1)Section 40

…in the course of assessment proceedings cannot give immunity from revisionaljurisdiction of the CIT/Pr. CIT u/s 263 and the same has been reiterated by the Hon'bleSupreme Court in various decisions including that of :- i) Rampyari Devi Saraogi Vs. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC), ii) Tara Devi Agarwal vs. CIT(1973) 88 ITR 323 (SC). iii) Malabar Industries Co. Ltd vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) 6. I have considered the order of the AO, submissions of the assessee and I have also examined the assessment records. It is seen that the AO has failed to make thedisallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS as provided…

M/S. P.K. Cotton Mills (P) Ltd., Meerut vs. ACIT, Meerut

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2504/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 263

…cause, on the question of inquiry, the section specifically says that that inquiry should be as "deemed necessary" by the CIT. In this connection, we may profitably refer to some of the observations of the Supreme Court in Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) : TC57R.202. In that case, the order which was passed by the CIT mentioned some facts which were not indicated or intimated to the assessee and which the assessee had no opportunity of meeting. The assessee made a grievance of this but the Supreme Court disposed of the contention raised by the assessee by observing that all the additional mate…

M/S. Chandni Commercials Pvt. Ltd., (Adhirath Commercial Pvt. Ltd., Since Merged), Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 7(1), Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2678/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.2678/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Chandni Commercials Pvt. Vs. Ito, Ward-7(1), Kolkata Ltd.(Adhirath Commercial Pvt. Ltd. Since Merged) 9, Ezra Street, 1St Floor, Room No.23, Kol-1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaeccc2811Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kataruka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Nayak, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…of assessment proceedings cannot give immunity from revisional jurisdiction of the CIT/Pr. CIT u/s 263. The above position of the law has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various decisions including that of Rampyari Devi Saraogi Vs. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC), Tara Devi Agarwal vs. CIT(1973) 88 ITR 323 (SC), Malabar Industries Co. Ltd vs. CIT (1991) 198 ITR 611 (Kerala) which was affirmed by Supreme Court in 243 ITR 83. In the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in order to invoke provisions of Section 263, the assessment order of the AO ought to be e…