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

Sahayamatha Salterns Pvt. Limited, Tuticorin vs. DCIT Circle 1, Tuticorin

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

ITA 1498/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1498/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-2015. M/S. Sahayamatha Salterns Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd, Income Tax, 13-A-1, Meenakshipuram Circle I, West, Tuticorin. Tuticorin 628 002. Tamil Nadu

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A. Sundararajan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

…der to assist someone else who would have been assessed to a larger amount, an assessment so made can certainly be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. . . . " (p. 328) The case of the Supreme Court in Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 also supports the revenue. The majority view of the Tribunal distinguishes those cases on some misconception’’. Therefore in our considered opinion, the Assessing Officer not following procedure prescribed in Sub Clause (d) of Clause of 3 of said CBDT instruction would render the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the…

Gordon Bruce Serrao, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -28, Mumbai

In the result, appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3105/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Saktijit Dey

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram a/wFor Respondent: Shri M. Daya Sagar
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54

…92] 198 ITR 297 (SC); xiii) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v/s CIT, [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC); xiv) Venkatakrishna Rice Co. v/s CIT, [1987] 163 ITR 129 (Mad.); xv) Bismillah Trading Co. v/s IO, [2001] 248 ITR 292 (Ker.); xvi) Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v/s CIT, [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC); xvii) Thalibai F. Jain v/s ITO, [1975] 101 ITR 1 (Kar.); and xviii) CIT v/s Pushpa Devi, [1987] 164 ITR 639 (Patna). 4. Shri M. Dayasagar, the learned Departmental Representative strongly relying upon the observations of learned PCIT submitted, the Assessing Officer has not made any enquiry at all with regard to the nature of income derived…

Senco Gold Ltd As Successor to Senco Gold Impex Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 11(2), Kolkata

ITA 839/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.838/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Senco Gold Ltd. As Successor To Vs. Cit-4, Kolkata. Senco Gold Impex Pvt. Ltd. C/O Senco Gold Ltd., Diamond Prestige, 41A, A.J.C. Bose Road, 10Th Floor, Unit No.1001, Kolkata – 700017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aakcs2962C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No. 839/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Senco Gold Ltd. As Successor To Vs. Dcit, Circle-11(2), Kolkata. Senco Gold Impex Pvt. Ltd. C/O Senco Gold Ltd., Diamond Prestige, 41A, A.J.C. Bose Road, 10Th Floor, Unit No.1001, Kolkata – 700017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aakcs2962C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar Respondent By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 18/09/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27/11/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: These Two Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2010-11 Arises From The Commissioner Of Income Tax-4, Kolkata & Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-4, Kolkata’S Orders Dated 27.08.18 & 22.02.18, Involving Proceedings U/S 263/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961; In Short ‘The Act’, Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT
Section 10ASection 263

…sequential assessment has been framed after affording adequate opportunity of hearing wherein it has failed to substantiate the impugned deduction claim. Ms. Biswas quoted hon’ble apex court’s decision in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT: 243 ITR 83, (1968) 67 ITR 84(SC) Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84(SC) & Gee Vee. Enterprise vs. ACIT (1975) 99 ITR 279 (Del) holding that CIT has rightly directed the Assessing Officer to frame a fresh assessment in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 12. We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival contentions. It is not in dispute that the as…

Senco Gold Ltd As Successor to Senco Gold Impex Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. CIT - 4, Kolkata

ITA 838/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.838/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Senco Gold Ltd. As Successor To Vs. Cit-4, Kolkata. Senco Gold Impex Pvt. Ltd. C/O Senco Gold Ltd., Diamond Prestige, 41A, A.J.C. Bose Road, 10Th Floor, Unit No.1001, Kolkata – 700017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aakcs2962C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No. 839/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Senco Gold Ltd. As Successor To Vs. Dcit, Circle-11(2), Kolkata. Senco Gold Impex Pvt. Ltd. C/O Senco Gold Ltd., Diamond Prestige, 41A, A.J.C. Bose Road, 10Th Floor, Unit No.1001, Kolkata – 700017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aakcs2962C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar Respondent By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 18/09/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27/11/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: These Two Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2010-11 Arises From The Commissioner Of Income Tax-4, Kolkata & Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-4, Kolkata’S Orders Dated 27.08.18 & 22.02.18, Involving Proceedings U/S 263/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961; In Short ‘The Act’, Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT
Section 10ASection 263

…sequential assessment has been framed after affording adequate opportunity of hearing wherein it has failed to substantiate the impugned deduction claim. Ms. Biswas quoted hon’ble apex court’s decision in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT: 243 ITR 83, (1968) 67 ITR 84(SC) Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84(SC) & Gee Vee. Enterprise vs. ACIT (1975) 99 ITR 279 (Del) holding that CIT has rightly directed the Assessing Officer to frame a fresh assessment in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 12. We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival contentions. It is not in dispute that the as…

M/S. General Polytex Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. ITO, Ward - 1(1), Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2211/KOL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2008-09 M/S General Polytex Pvt. V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ltd., A-Wing, 6Th Floor, Ward-1(1), Aayakar International Commerce Bhawan, P-7, Centre (Icc), Near Chowringhee Kadiwala School, Ring Square,Kolkata-69 Road, Surat-395002 [Pan No.Ssvvb 5335 L] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent None अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Radehy Shyam, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 09-09-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 22-11-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2008-09 Arises Against The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Kolkata’S Order Dated 28.03.2018 Passed In Case M.No.Pr.Cit-1/Kol/Revision U/S263/2017- 18/14797-14800, Involving Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Case Called Twice. None Appears At Assessee’S Behest. The Registry Has Already Issued Rpad Notice Dated 20.08.2019 For Today’S (09.09.2019) Hearing. We Therefore Proceed Ex Parte Against The Assessee To Decide The Instant Appeal On Merits. 2. Case File Suggests That The Assessing Officer Had Framed Assessment / Re-Assessment In Assessee’S Case In Issue Dated 28.01.2016 Invoking Sec.

Section 133(6)Section 143Section 263

…hat 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 vs. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 & Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal vs. 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 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…

M/S Lalchand Laxminarayan, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-44(2), Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 664/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2014-15 M/S Lalchand Laxminarayan, V/S. Income Tax Officer 67/47, Strand Road, Ward-44(2), 3 Govt. Kolkata-700 007 Place (West), [Pan No.Aabfl 1632 L] Kolkata-700 001 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Dr. A.K.Nayak, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 04-09-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 20-11-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Arises Against The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-15 Kolkata’S Order Dated 11.02.2019 Passed In M.No.Pcit-15/Kol/U/S.263/12/118-19/7305-07, Involving Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. We Advert To The Relevant Basic Facts. This Assessee Is A Partnership Firm Engaged In Trading In Sugar & Carrying Out Commission Agent Business. It Filed Its Return On 24.09.2014 Declaring Taxable Income Of ₹7,82,590/- Which Stood Processed U/S. 143(1) Of The Act. The Assessing Officer Thereafter Framed Regular Assessment On 30.11.2016 Disallowing 20% Of The Assessee’S Business Expenses Of ₹3,03,873/-; Coming To ₹60,774/-.

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

…t all the relevant details to this effect formed part of record. The PCIT has declined the said explanation by quoting various judicial precedents i.e. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC), Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal vs. CIT (1973) 88 ITR 323 (SC), GEE VEE Enterprise Vs. Addl. CIT (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Del) that since the Assessing Officer had not conducted the due enquiries regarding assessee’s brokerage payments of Shri Kailash Nath Singh HUF as well as Sita Tiwari, the same is liable to be revised as erroneous causing prejudice to…

Kamal Coke Industries Pvt. Ltd. (Now Known As Kamal Coke Industries LLP), Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 1(1), Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2442/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.2442/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Kamal Coke Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Kolkata (Now Known As Kamal Coke Industries Llp), Kolkata. 209, A.J.C Bose Road, Karnani Estate, Room No.119, Kolkata – 700017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadck5324K (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri A. K. Nayak, Cit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 03/09/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per S. S. Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) - 1, Kolkata Dated 22.02.2017 Passed In Case No.F.No.Pr.Cit-1/Kol/Revision U/S 263/2016-17/13640-43 Involving Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’). Case Called Twice. None Appears At Assessee’S Behest. Case File Suggests That Rpad Notices Dated 30.07.2019 & 03.09.2019 Stand Returned Unserved. We Therefore Proceed Ex Parte Against The Assessee/Appellant In The Main Appeal. 2. It Emerges At The Outset That This Assessee’S Appeal Suffers From 219 Days’ Delay In Filing. Its Condonation Petition Dated 11.12.2017 Pleads That It Had Not Been Properly Advised By Its Auditor/Counsel Regarding Maintainable Of The Instant Appeal. All These Solemn Averments Have Gone Unrebutted From The Revenue Side.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Nayak, CIT
Section 263

…al in the case file about the necessary intimation to this effect issued to the departmental authorities. We therefore quote hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision Malabar Industrial Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243 83(SC), Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 & Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC) & Gee Vee Enterprise v. Addl. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 375(Delhi) to hold that such a failure on account of the Assessing Officer’s action in carrying out necessary inquiries during the course of scrutiny render an assessment erroneous causing prejudice to interest of Revenue. 5. It has further been…

M/S. La Opala RG Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Range - 12, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 559/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 80ISection 80l

…1 La Opala RG Ltd.., AY- 2013-14 आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “C” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA (सम") "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं डॉ. अजु"न लाल सैनी, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, JM & Dr. A. L. Saini, AM] I.T.A. No. 559/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. La Opala R. G. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, (PAN: AAACL5569J) Range-12, Kolkata Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 18.09.2019 Date of Pronouncement 31.10.2019 For the Appellant Shri A. K. Tulsyan, FCA & Ms. Shikha Agarwal, ACA For the Respondent Dr. P. K. Srihari, CIT, DR ORDER Per S…

ACIT Non Corporate Circle 4, Coimbatore vs. Sri Balaji Real Estates, Pollachi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 3148/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.397/Chny/2016, 2544, 2545 & 3148/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shir. S. Bharath, IRS, CIT
Section 139Section 147Section 148

…ere 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)’’. Appling the principle enunciated above to the facts of the case, we are of the opinion that the order of revision by the ld. PCIT is not valid in law and therefore we quash the revisionary proceedings u/s.263 of the Act. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA…

ACIT Non Corporate Circle 4, Coimbatore vs. Sri Balaji Real Estates, Pollachi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2545/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.397/Chny/2016, 2544, 2545 & 3148/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shir. S. Bharath, IRS, CIT
Section 139Section 147Section 148

…ere 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)’’. Appling the principle enunciated above to the facts of the case, we are of the opinion that the order of revision by the ld. PCIT is not valid in law and therefore we quash the revisionary proceedings u/s.263 of the Act. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA…

ACIT Non Corporate Circle 4, Coimbatore vs. Sri Balaji Real Estates, Pollachi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2544/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.397/Chny/2016, 2544, 2545 & 3148/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shir. S. Bharath, IRS, CIT
Section 139Section 147Section 148

…ere 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)’’. Appling the principle enunciated above to the facts of the case, we are of the opinion that the order of revision by the ld. PCIT is not valid in law and therefore we quash the revisionary proceedings u/s.263 of the Act. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA…

Sri Balaji Real Estates, Pollachi vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1238/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.397/Chny/2016, 2544, 2545 & 3148/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shir. S. Bharath, IRS, CIT
Section 139Section 147Section 148

…ere 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)’’. Appling the principle enunciated above to the facts of the case, we are of the opinion that the order of revision by the ld. PCIT is not valid in law and therefore we quash the revisionary proceedings u/s.263 of the Act. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA…

Sri Balaji Real Estates, Pollachi vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1237/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.397/Chny/2016, 2544, 2545 & 3148/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shir. S. Bharath, IRS, CIT
Section 139Section 147Section 148

…ere 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)’’. Appling the principle enunciated above to the facts of the case, we are of the opinion that the order of revision by the ld. PCIT is not valid in law and therefore we quash the revisionary proceedings u/s.263 of the Act. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA…

ACIT, Coimbatore vs. Sri Balaji Real Estates, Pollachi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 397/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.397/Chny/2016, 2544, 2545 & 3148/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shir. S. Bharath, IRS, CIT
Section 139Section 147Section 148

…ere 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)’’. Appling the principle enunciated above to the facts of the case, we are of the opinion that the order of revision by the ld. PCIT is not valid in law and therefore we quash the revisionary proceedings u/s.263 of the Act. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA…

Mrs. Shumana Sen, Noida vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 3284/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Shumana Sen, AssesseeFor Respondent: Smt. Deepika Mittal, CIT- DR
Section 263

…s. are erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as the A.O. has not conducted proper enquires in your case suggesting for remedial action u/s 263 of the I. T. Act, 1961 and in view of the following case laws: Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs CIT(SC) 67 ITR 84 1. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs CIT(SC) 243 ITR 83 2. Swarup Vegetable Products Industries Ltd. vs CIT(AIL) 3. 187 ITR 412 CITvs Eastern Medikit Ltd. (Del) 58DTR 265; 337 ITR 4. 56. " In view of the above errors reported by the Assessing Officer and also the Addl. CIT, the undersigned has called for and examined the relevant assessment records…

Mrs. Shumana Sen, Noida vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 3281/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Shumana Sen, AssesseeFor Respondent: Smt. Deepika Mittal, CIT- DR
Section 263

…s. are erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as the A.O. has not conducted proper enquires in your case suggesting for remedial action u/s 263 of the I. T. Act, 1961 and in view of the following case laws: Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs CIT(SC) 67 ITR 84 1. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs CIT(SC) 243 ITR 83 2. Swarup Vegetable Products Industries Ltd. vs CIT(AIL) 3. 187 ITR 412 CITvs Eastern Medikit Ltd. (Del) 58DTR 265; 337 ITR 4. 56. " In view of the above errors reported by the Assessing Officer and also the Addl. CIT, the undersigned has called for and examined the relevant assessment records…

Mrs. Shumana Sen, Noida vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 3283/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Shumana Sen, AssesseeFor Respondent: Smt. Deepika Mittal, CIT- DR
Section 263

…s. are erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as the A.O. has not conducted proper enquires in your case suggesting for remedial action u/s 263 of the I. T. Act, 1961 and in view of the following case laws: Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs CIT(SC) 67 ITR 84 1. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs CIT(SC) 243 ITR 83 2. Swarup Vegetable Products Industries Ltd. vs CIT(AIL) 3. 187 ITR 412 CITvs Eastern Medikit Ltd. (Del) 58DTR 265; 337 ITR 4. 56. " In view of the above errors reported by the Assessing Officer and also the Addl. CIT, the undersigned has called for and examined the relevant assessment records…

Mrs. Shumana Sen, Noida vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 3282/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Shumana Sen, AssesseeFor Respondent: Smt. Deepika Mittal, CIT- DR
Section 263

…s. are erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as the A.O. has not conducted proper enquires in your case suggesting for remedial action u/s 263 of the I. T. Act, 1961 and in view of the following case laws: Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs CIT(SC) 67 ITR 84 1. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs CIT(SC) 243 ITR 83 2. Swarup Vegetable Products Industries Ltd. vs CIT(AIL) 3. 187 ITR 412 CITvs Eastern Medikit Ltd. (Del) 58DTR 265; 337 ITR 4. 56. " In view of the above errors reported by the Assessing Officer and also the Addl. CIT, the undersigned has called for and examined the relevant assessment records…

Mahim Patran P. Ltd, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT -2, Agra

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

ITA 195/AGR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra02 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 143(3)Section 199(1)Section 205Section 263

…ere 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). 10. In the instant case, the Commissioner noted that the ITO passed the order of nil assessment without application of mind. Indeed, the High Court recorded the finding that the ITO failed to apply his mind to the case in all perspective and the order passed by him was erroneous.…

Winvest Holdings (I) Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands

ITA 1519/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1519/Chny/2019. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-2015. M/S. Winvest Holdings (I) Pvt. Ltd, Vs The Assistant Commissioner Of D-16, 2Nd Floor, Nelson Chambers, Income Tax, No.115 Nelson Manickam Road, Corporate Circle 3(2), Aminjikarai, Chennai. Chennai 600 029. [Pan Aaacw 7724Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. P. Daniel, Advocate
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…o the issues raised before Assessing Officer during the course of fresh assessment proceedings. To buttress his submission the learned counsel for the Revenue has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 . This is a case in which the order issued by the Commissioner, itself revealed that the assessment was being reopened based on an additional supporting material. The Supreme Court in such fact situation thus ruled that non-supply of additional supporting material would not affect the basic issue of assessment being carried out without adequate inv…