How many judgments cite Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT?

616 judgments on BharatTax cite Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT (67 ITR 84), spanning 2009 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 263, Section 143(3), Section 142(1), Section 1961, Section 147, Section 144B.

Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT

67 ITR 84Supreme Court of India1968#97 most cited

What is Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT authority for?

An assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue's interests if the Assessing Officer accepts a sum offered as income by an assessee, even when that sum was not actually earned, thereby allowing revision under Section 263.

616

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT · Section 263 revision · assessment erroneous and prejudicial · unearned income offered · Assessing Officer accepting income · Commissioner's power of revision · inadequate inquiry by AO · Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. reference · Income Tax Act 1961 Section 263

Also reported as

3 SCC 482240 Taxmann 221

Sections most often in play

Section 263 Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 1961 Section 147 Section 144B Section 148 Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

section 263(1)inadequate enquiry malabar industrial lack of enquiry prejudicial to interest of revenue revision under section 263 assessment order erroneous revision u/s 263 erroneous and prejudicial section 263 non-application of mind section 26

Judgments citing Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT

Raptakos Brett and Co.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 5, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2251/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2251/Mum/2015 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) बनधम/ M/S Raptakos Brett & Co.Ltd. The Principal Commissioner Of 253, Dr.Annier Besant Road, Income Tax, Vs. Room No.559, 5Th Floor, Worli, Mumbai-400030 Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road Mumbai-400020 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan :Aaacr1772R अपीऱार्थी ओर से / Appellant By Shri Yogesh Thar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By Shri B Pruseth सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2016 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement :22.12.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.2.2015, Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Setting Aside The Assessing Order & Directing The Ao To Withdraw The Deduction Allowed By The Ao In Respect Of Advance To Subsidiary Written Off & Charged To The Profit & Loss Account.

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 256Section 263

…was allowed without verification of facts and without application of mind by the AO. The ld. DR also relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of (a) CIT V Amitabh Bachchan [2016] 384 ITR 200 (SC) (b) Rampyari Devi Saraogi V/s CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 (SC) (c) Decision of Full Bench of Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT V/s Jawahar Bhattachagee (341 ITR 434), (d) the decision of Hon’ble Karnatak High Court in the cae of CIT V/s Infosys Technologies Ltd reported in 17 Taxmann.com 203 (Kar) and (e) the Decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Rajyalakshmi Mill Ltd V/…

M/S. P.K. Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd., Meerut vs. CIT, Meerut

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

ITA 2055/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. P.K. Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd., 202, New Mohan Puri, Meerut. Meerut Pan : Aadcp4270D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Vinod Kr. Goel, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Ankur Garg, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24.08.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 18.11.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 18/03/2013 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax, Meerut Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961(In Short “The Act”) Revising The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Act For Assessment Year 2008-09. The Assessee Revised Its Grounds Of Appeal Vide Letter Dated 07/07/2015, Which Are Reproduced As Under: “1. That Notice U/S 263 Issued By Cit, Meerut Was Vague & Is Based Upon Incorrect Facts & Law & No Reasonable & Proper Opportunity Being Heard Was Allowed. Hence, Entire Proceeding Is Against The Principle Of Natural Justice. 2. That Ld. Cit, Meerut Has Not Justified In Making Addition Of Rs. 49,46,196/- Claimed By The Assessee As Loss On Account Of Machinery, Which Is After Due Consideration Accepted By The Ld. A.O.. This Addition Is Against Law & Facts Of The Case.

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40Section 40ASection 40A(2)(b)Section 43B

…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 15 AY: 2008-09 of the contention raised by the assessee by observing that all the…

M/S. India Habitat Centre, New Delhi vs. CIT(E), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 2340/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Oct 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kanta.Y. : 2011-12 India Habitat Centre, Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Lodi Road, Vs. Pratyakash Kar Bhavan, E- New Delhi - 110003 2, Block, 26Th Floor, Dr. (Pan: Aaati0499M) Shyama Prasad Mukherjeemarg, Civic Centre, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, New Delhi – 110 002 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Suresh Ananthraman, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Satpal Gulati, CIT(DR)

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ings. This principle was noticed by the Delhi High Court in Geevee Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT 99 ITR 375 (Del.). In arriving at this decision, the Delhi High Court drew strength from the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Rampyari Devi Sarogi vs. CIT 67 ITR 84 (SC) and Tara Devi Agarwal vs. CIT, 88 ITR 324 (SC). The underlying principle which emerges from these judgments is that if an assessment order is passed without making any enquiries, then such an order would be erroneous. 8.4 We also find that the AO has consciously taken a view with regard to the “Principle of Mutuality”. The Hon’ble Supreme Cou…

Sh. Surinder Kumar Jain, Karnal vs. ITO, Karnal

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 2481/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv., Sh. AshishFor Respondent: Sh. Satpal Gulati, CIT(DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…TR 375 (Delhi). Further, failure to make enquiries making the order without evidence or enquiry renders the order erroneous and prejudicial held in the case of Addl. CIT vs. Mukur Corporn. (1978) 111 ITR 312 (Guj) and Ram Pyari Devi Saraogi vs. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC). In this regard, the following observations of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in CWT Vs. NT Rama Rao [2003] 261 ITR 611 made after applying the 'decisions of the Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. Vs. CIT 243 TTR 83, are relevant: What is an error? "A mistaken judgement or incorrect belief as to the or effect of matter of fac…

Sesec, Eco. Railway Employees Co Operative Credit Society Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT-10, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee on this ground, is dismissed

ITA 621/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Sept 2016AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am ] Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Subhra Biswas, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

…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. 7. Now we move on to each issue to see whether the A.O. has diligently enquired and examined them. 3 S.E.S.E.C.,E.Co.Railway Employees Co-op.Credit Society Ltd. A..Y.2011-12 7.1…

M/S Ashiana Housing Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-8(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands dismissed

ITA 523/KOL/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Sept 2016AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narsimha Charyassessment Years:2012-13

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…nion that the order of the ITO was erroneous because previous inquiries were not made by the ITO. Nor can it be said that it was necessary for the CIT himself to make such inquiry before cancelling the order of assessment.— Rampyari Devi Sarogi vs. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) : TC57R.202 and Tara Devi Aggarwal vs. CIT 1973 CTR (SC) 107 : (1973) 88 ITR 323 (SC) : TC57R.206 relied on CIT was justified in exercising his revisional jurisdiction on the ground that the ITO had not made sufficient enquiries before granting registration to the firm and it was not necessary for the CIT to have himself made enquiries before…

Francis Klein & Company Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. CIT, Kolkata-1, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 771/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Aug 2016AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 263

…inion that the order of the ITO was erroneous because previous inquiries were not made by the ITO. Nor can it be said that it was necessary for the CIT himself to make such inquiry before cancelling the order of assessment.—Rampyari Devi Sarogi vs. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) : TC57R.202 and Tara Devi Aggarwal vs. CIT 1973 CTR (SC) 107 : (1973) 88 ITR 323 (SC) : TC57R.206 relied on. CIT was justified in exercising his revisional jurisdiction on the ground that the ITO had not made sufficient enquiries before granting registration to the firm and it was not necessary for the CIT to have himself made enquiries before…

DCIT, Circle - 2, Midnapore, Paschim Medinipur vs. M/S. Grami Agro Pvt. Ltd., Paschim Medinipur

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 755/KOL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2007-08

Section 133ASection 133A(3)(i)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 40

…e powers under s. 263 as the twin conditions precedent to exercise the power has not been satisfied in this case.—Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 159 CTR (SC) 1 : (2001) 243 ITR 83 (SC) and Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal vs. CIT 1973 CTR (SC) 107 : (1973) 88 ITR 323 (SC) relied on. ITO having not accepted the income declared by the assessee after the survey in a mechanical way, but after applying his mind to various aspects of the matter including the disclosure made before completing the assessment, order passed by the AO cannot be said to be erroneous or prejudicial to the Revenue and the CIT was not justif…

Real Trade Technologies, Navi Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 28, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 2929/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…izon Investment Co Ltd (ITA No.1593/Mum/2013 dated 27.06.2014) by considering the decisions rendered in the following cases:- (a) Malabar Industrial Company Ltd (243 ITR 83)(SC) (b) Addl CIT Vs. Gee Vee Enterprises (1975)(99 ITR 375)(Delhi) (c) Rampyari Devi (67 ITR 84) (d) Tara Devi Agarwal (88 ITR 323) The Co-ordinate bench held that the failure on the part of the AO to make proper enquiries as warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case would render the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The Ld D.R also relied upon the decision rendered in the case of CIT Vs. I…

Ayyazuddin J, Khan, Navi Mumbai vs. CIT- 22

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2881/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2881/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ayyazuddin J. Khan Ito-22(3)-1, Block No. 103, Aggarwal Upavan, Tower No. 6, Vashi Railway बनाम/ Plot No. 11, Sector – 19, Nerul, Station, Complex, Vashi, Vs. Navi Mumbai-400 706 Navi Mumbai-400 073 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Atxpk 4365 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Kishore K. Poddar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri H. N. Singh

For Appellant: Shri Kishore K. PoddarFor Respondent: Shri H. N. Singh

Section 143(3)Section 263

…’ble Apex Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC). Explaining its rationale, with reference to the two decisions by the said Court, namely, Tara Devi Aggarwal vs. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 0323 (SC) and Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 (SC), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court clarified in Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 0375 (Del), that this is so as the position and function of the Income Tax Officer (ITO) is very different from that of a Civil Court. The statements made in a pleading, proved by the minimum amount of evidence, may be accepted by a civil Court in the ab…

Good Morning, Mumbai vs. CIT 15, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2533/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2533/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Good Morning Cit-15, बनाम/ Shivtirth No. 2, E Wing, 124, Matru Mandir, 1St Floor, Tardeo Road, 4/6 Bhulabhai Desai Road, Haji Ali, Vs. Mumbai-400 026 Mumbai-400 007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aadfp 2489 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vidisha Kalra सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 21.6.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 24.6.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Agitating The Revision Of Its Assessment U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) Dated 16.12.2011 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax-15, Mumbai (‘Cit’ For Short) Vide His Order U/S. 263 Of The Act Dated 24.3.2014 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2009-10. 2. None Appeared For & On Behalf Of The Assessee When Its’ Appeal Was Called Out For Hearing. In Fact, We Observe No Appearance By The Assessee-Appellant On Any Date Of Hearing Despite Service Of Notices Of Hearing Per Registered Post. There Is Also No Adjournment Application On Record & Neither Has The Assessee, On The Basis Of The Material On Record, Appointed/Authorized Any Counsel To Represent Its’ Case Before The 2 Good Morning Vs. Cit Tribunal. The Appeal Contests The Order Of Revision, Which Is To Be Taken Up On A Priority Basis In-As-Much As It Has Implication On Quantum Assessment. It Was, Accordingly, Considered Proper To Proceed To Hear This Appeal Ex Parte The Assessee & Decide The Same On Merits After Hearing The Party Before Us & Considering The Material On Record.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vidisha Kalra

Section 143(3)Section 263

…le High Court in Gee Vee Enterprises vs. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Del), is for the reason that the assessing authority under the Act is both an adjudicitor as well as an investigator. Relying on two decisions by the Apex Court, viz. Rampyari Devi Saraogi [1987] 67 ITR 84 (SC) and Tara Devi Aggarwal [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC), it stands explained therein that the position and function/s of an Income Tax Officer is different from that of a civil court. In its words: ‘……..the statements made in a pleading proved by the minimum of evidence may be adopted by a civil court in the absence of any rebuttal. The civil court is n…

Khoday Eshwarsa & Sons, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1117/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri. Sunil Kumar Yadav

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sukumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sibichen K. Mathew, CIT -III

Section 263

…sessed as income in his hands on his so offering, the order passed by the AO accepting the same as such will be erroneous and ITA No.1117/Bang/2010 & ITA.614/Bang/2010 Page - 22 prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue'Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84(SC) and in Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal vs. CIT 1973 CTR (SC) 107: (1973) 88 ITR 323(SC). In the instant case, the CIT 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 erroneou…

Marsons Limited, Kolkata vs. CIT-I, Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1140/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2016AY 2009-2010

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri K.M.Roy, FCAFor Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCIT, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263

…ake inquiry which the AO ought to have made in the given facts and circumstances of a case, renders order of assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The following decisions are relevant in this regard :- i)Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs CIT 67 ITR 84 (SC) ITA No.1140/Kol/2014 – Marsons Limited A.Y.2009-10 ii)Tara Devi Aggarwal vs CIT 88 ITR 323 ((SC) iii)G.B.Enterprises vs Addl. CIT 99 ITR 375 (Delhi.) Whenever jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act is exercised by the CIT and an order of assessment is revised on the ground that the AO before completing an assessment did not make the required enquiri…

M/S. India Habitat Centre, New Delhi vs. DIT (E), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 2390/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kanta.Y. : 2010-11 India Habitat Centre, Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Lodi Road, Vs. Pratyakash Kar Bhavan, E- New Delhi - 110003 2, Block, 26Th Floor, Dr. (Pan: Aaati0499M) Shyama Prasad Mukherjeemarg, Civic Centre, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, New Delhi – 110 002 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Suresh Ananthraman, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sulekha Verma, CIT(DR)

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…s. This principle was noticed by the Delhi High Court in Geevee Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT 99 ITR 375 (Del.). In arriving at this 12 decision, the Delhi High Court drew strength from the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Rampyari Devi Sarogi vs. CIT 67 ITR 84 (SC) and Tara Devi Agarwal vs. CIT, 88 ITR 324 (SC). The underlying principle which emerges from these judgments is that if an assessment order is passed without making any enquiries, then such an order would be erroneous. 8.4 We also find that the AO has consciously taken a view with regard to the “Principle of Mutuality”. The Hon’ble Supreme Cou…

Bridge & Building Construction Co. (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. CIT (Cen-1), Kolkata

ITA 241/KOL/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Apr 2016AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2011-12

Section 131(1)(d)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263

…eous & prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (Central)-1, Kolkata has erred in setting aside order U/s 143(3) dated 28.03.2014 by relying on the decision of Rampyari Devi Saraogi – Vs – CIT, 67 ITR 84(SC) 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (Central)-1, Kolkata has erred in passing order U/s 263 dated 15.01.2015 by relying upon irrelevant & extraneous circumstances 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (Central)-1, Kolkata has erred in not appreciating the facts properly that the AO con…

M/S. Century Textiles and Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ACIT Cir 6(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 5677/MUM/2008[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2016AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 105Section 106Section 10BSection 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…essment order passed by the AO u/s t43 (3) of the I. T. Act, 1961, on 28.11.2006 is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In this connection reliance is placed upon the following decisions. i) Rampyari Dev Saraogi v. CIT, [1968] 67 ITR 84(SC); ii) Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT, [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC); iii) Duggal & Co. v. CIT, 220 ITR 456, 459 (Del.); iv) CIT v. Pushpandevi, 164 ITR 639 (Pat.); and v) K A Ramaswamy Chettiar v. CIT, 220 ITR 657, 665 (Mad). I, therefore, set-aside the assessment order passed by the AO. He is directed to make fresh assessment after examining the applicabi…

M/S. Century Textiles and Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ACIT RG 6(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4875/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2016AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 105Section 106Section 10BSection 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Hisar

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

ITA 3128/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. C.M. Garg & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 143(3)Section 263

…rder if all the facts stated therein are assumed to be correct.” 29. It has been further noted that in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises (supra), their lordships had also referred to earlier decisions of the Supreme Court in Rampyari Devi Sarogi V/s CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) and 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. It was noted that after reference to these two decisions, the Delhi High Court…

Jindal Steel Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. CIT, Hisar

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

ITA 3283/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. C.M. Garg & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 143(3)Section 263

Shri Kishan Jindal, Kolkata vs. C.I.T - Xv, Kolkata

In the result appeal by the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 781/KOL/2013[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Mar 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri M.Satnaliwala, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sachidananda Srivastava, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263

…g cognizance of the discrepancies noticed and detailed above. The A.O. didn't take even basic steps to verify this aspect. There is no reference to these even in the assessment order. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rampyari Devi Saraogi-Vs-CIT{1968} 67 ITR 84{SC) and Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal- VS-CIT{1973}8B ITR 323{SC) has held that in the absence of proper enquiries, the assessment order would become erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprise -Vs-AddI.CIT{1975} 991TR 375 has held as under: ITA No.781/Kol/2013-Sh.Shri Kishan Ji…