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 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

Tejashree Atul Patil, Pune vs. Pr.CIT - 2, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 927/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri C.V.DeshpandeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 54F

…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 - RampyariDevi Saraogi v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 (SC) and in Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC). [Emphasis Supplied]” 13. Now examining the contentions of ld. Counsel for the assessee in light of the settled judicial precedents, the main plea of ld. Counsel for the assessee is that the reason for reopening the assessment was regarding the source of cash of Rs.1,58,94,320/- giv…

Qader Abdul Razzaque Abdul, Aurangabad vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Nashik

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 937/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.937/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Qader Abdul Razzaque Abdul, Principal Commissioner M/S. Captain Color Home Opp. Of Income Tax, Nashik-1 Bhartiya Hospital Raja Bazar Chh. Vs. Sambhajinagar (Aurangabad), Pin Code-431001 Pan : Acqpk8963L अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Shubham N. Rathi Department By : Shri Amit Bobde Date Of Hearing : 24-06-2025 Date Of 04-09-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order

For Appellant: Shri Shubham N. RathiFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 69

…acts of the assessee‟s case. 14. It has been held by various Courts that lack of enquiry on the germane issue renders the assessment order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs. CIT (67 ITR 84) while taking note of the fact that the AO had concluded the assessment in "undue hurry" by passing a short, stereotyped assessment order, without making any inquiries, upheld the revision done by the CIT. 8 ITA No.937/PUN/2024, AY 2019-10 15. In the case of Deniel Merchants Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO dated 29.11.2017, the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the…

India Japan Lighting Private Limited, Chennai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 4, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1427/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1427/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 V. M/S. India Japan Lighting Pvt. Ltd., The Pcit-4, No.1, Tiruvallur High Road, Chennai. Puduchatram B.O., Thirumazhisai, Tiruvallur-600 124. [Pan: Aaaci 2673 L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263

…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. (See ‘Rampyari Devi Saraogiv CIT[(1968) 67 ITR 84(SC)] and in ‘’Tara Devi Aggarwalv.CIT[(1973) 3 SCC 482:1973 SCC (Tax) 318:(1973) 88 ITR 323].) [Emphasis supplied] 26. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Paville Projects (P) Ltd. [2023 SCC OnLine SC 371], while relying upon Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., has discussed the sanctity of two-fold conditions for the purpose of inv…

Guru Kripa Associates, Bareilly vs. Pr. CIT, Bareilly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 97/LKW/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow14 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 263

…of the CIT under the old Act held that," where assessment was completed by the ITO with under haste, without holding necessary enquiry, it is sufficient to hold that the assessment order is erroneous." (iii) In the case of Smt Tara Devi Agarwal v/s CIT(1973) 88 ITR 323(SC), it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that, " even where income has not been earned and is not assessable merely because the assessee wants it to be assessed in his or her end in order to assist someone else who would have been assessed to a larger amount, the assessment to made can certainly be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of re…

Procter and Gamble Health Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -8, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2326/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji & Shri Ajay BhandariFor Respondent: Shri R A Dhyani, CIT D/R
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 40Section 50CSection 56(2)(x)Section 68

…assed by the Assessing Officer accepting the same as such will be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. (See Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT[1968] 67 ITR 84 (SC) and in Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT (1973) 3 SCC 482 : 1973 SCC (Tax) 318 : (1973) 88 ITR 323." [Emphasis supplied] 26. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Paville Projects (P.) Ltd. [2023] 149 taxmann.com 115/293 Тахтап 38/453 ITR 447 (SC)/[2023] SCC OnLine SC 371, while relying upon Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., has discussed the sanctity of twofold conditions for the purpose of invoking jurisdiction under Section 26…

Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Coimbatore vs. PCIT, Central, Chennai

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2017-

ITA 958/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 951 To 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aerpm-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram Pcit (Central)-2, Legal Heir Of Late Smt. K.Lakshmi, Vs. Chennai. 395, Oppanakara Street Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aazpl-6816-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 956 To 959/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aiypj-4331-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sundararaman, C.A (Erode) &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)(i)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘सी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI श्री मनु कुमार गिरर, न्यागिक सदस्य एवं श्री एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 951 to 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, PCIT (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [PAN: AERPM-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2…

Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Coimbatore vs. PCIT, Central, Chennai

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2017-

ITA 957/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 951 To 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aerpm-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram Pcit (Central)-2, Legal Heir Of Late Smt. K.Lakshmi, Vs. Chennai. 395, Oppanakara Street Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aazpl-6816-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 956 To 959/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aiypj-4331-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sundararaman, C.A (Erode) &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)(i)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘सी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI श्री मनु कुमार गिरर, न्यागिक सदस्य एवं श्री एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 951 to 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, PCIT (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [PAN: AERPM-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2…

Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Coimbatore vs. PCIT, Central, Chennai

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2017-

ITA 956/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 951 To 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aerpm-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram Pcit (Central)-2, Legal Heir Of Late Smt. K.Lakshmi, Vs. Chennai. 395, Oppanakara Street Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aazpl-6816-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 956 To 959/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aiypj-4331-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sundararaman, C.A (Erode) &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)(i)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘सी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI श्री मनु कुमार गिरर, न्यागिक सदस्य एवं श्री एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 951 to 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, PCIT (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [PAN: AERPM-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2…

Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Coimbatore vs. PCIT (Central), Chennai

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2017-

ITA 953/CHNY/2025[953]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 951 To 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aerpm-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram Pcit (Central)-2, Legal Heir Of Late Smt. K.Lakshmi, Vs. Chennai. 395, Oppanakara Street Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aazpl-6816-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 956 To 959/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aiypj-4331-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sundararaman, C.A (Erode) &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)(i)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘सी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI श्री मनु कुमार गिरर, न्यागिक सदस्य एवं श्री एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 951 to 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, PCIT (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [PAN: AERPM-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2…

Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Coimbatore vs. PCIT (Central), Chennai

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2017-

ITA 952/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 951 To 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aerpm-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram Pcit (Central)-2, Legal Heir Of Late Smt. K.Lakshmi, Vs. Chennai. 395, Oppanakara Street Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aazpl-6816-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 956 To 959/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aiypj-4331-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sundararaman, C.A (Erode) &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)(i)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘सी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI श्री मनु कुमार गिरर, न्यागिक सदस्य एवं श्री एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 951 to 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, PCIT (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [PAN: AERPM-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2…

Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Coimbatore vs. PCIT (Central), Chennai

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2017-

ITA 951/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 951 To 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aerpm-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram Pcit (Central)-2, Legal Heir Of Late Smt. K.Lakshmi, Vs. Chennai. 395, Oppanakara Street Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aazpl-6816-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 956 To 959/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aiypj-4331-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sundararaman, C.A (Erode) &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)(i)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘सी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI श्री मनु कुमार गिरर, न्यागिक सदस्य एवं श्री एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 951 to 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, PCIT (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [PAN: AERPM-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2…

Shri Upasani Kanyakumari Sansthan, Rahata vs. ITO Exemption Ward 1(1), Nashik

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1456/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Chinmay PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 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 - RampyariDevi Saraogi v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 (SC) and in Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC). [Emphasis Supplied]” 10. Now on examining the facts of the case in light of the above judicial precedents, we firstly note that case of the assessee was selected for carrying out the re-assessment proceedings and valid notice u/s.148 of the Act was served and in compliance return o…

Abm Knowledgeware Limited, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3460/MUM/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 135Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 80G

…re 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). 5. 6. Thus, the Income-tax Officer is not only an adjudicator but also an investigator. He cannot remain passive in respect of a return which is picked up for complete scrutiny. The assessing officer must ascertain the truth of the facts stated in the return. It is in this context…

Manju Rakesh Jain, Mumbai vs. PCIT, Mumbai-20, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2280/MUM/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Manju Rakesh Jain, Pcit, Mumbai-20 704-A, Highland Park, Lokhanwala 418, 4Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Complex, Andheri West, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400058. Mumbai-400012. Pan No. Aaepj 9613 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi, CA
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 57

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2020-21 Manju Rakesh Jain, PCIT, Mumbai-20 704-A, Highland Park, Lokhanwala 418, 4th floor, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Complex, Andheri West, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400058. Mumbai-400012. PAN NO. AAEPJ 9613 N Appellant Respondent : Mr. Rakesh Joshi, CA Assessee by : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR Revenue by Date of Hearing : 30/07/2025 : 31/07/2025 Date of pronouncement ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed aga…

Nirmal Bang Securities Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai 4, Mumbai

The appeal of the appellant is dismissed

ITA 2454/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Nirmal Bang Securities P. Ltd. Pcit B-2, Marathon Innova, Aayakar Bhavan Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Vs. M.K. Road Opp. Peninsula Corporate Churchgate Lower Parel West Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 013. Pan : Aaacn7369I Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali AafaquiFor Respondent: Shri Anant N. Pai
Section 135Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 80GSection 80G(2)(iiihk)

…examined the issue during the assessment, then the same can be revised by Ld. PCIT. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (supra) has discussed the cases of Smt. Tara Devi Agarwal, 88 IR 323 (SC) and Rampyari Devi Saraogi, 67 ITR 84 and came to the conclusion that if the Ld. AO has not caused proper enquiries and passed an order, the same is held as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and upheld the Revisionary Jurisdiction of CIT. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR of the appellant has relied on the case of FDC Ltd. (ITA No. 1031/Mum/2023, A.Y. 2018-19 dated 2.8.2023…

B. Arunkumar Capital & Credit Services Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 3, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly

ITA 2034/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 80G

…re 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). 6. 7. Thus the Income-tax Officer is not only an adjudicator but also an investigator. He cannot remain passive in respect of a return which is picked up for complete scrutiny. The assessing officer must ascertain the truth of the facts stated in the return. It is in this context t…

Acc Mineral Resources Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai-1, Mumbai

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

ITA 2687/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am Acc Minerals Resources Limited Principal Commissioner Of Income 121, Cement House, Maharshi Karve Tax, Mumbai – 400 001. Vs. Road, Church Gate, Mumbai – 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aaact2214N (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Saurabh Soparkar (Virtually Appear) Respondent By : Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.07.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai -1 (‘Ld. Pcit’ For Short), Passed U/S.263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. In Law & In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case, Impugned Order U/S. 263 Of The Act Passed By Pcit-1, Mumbai Is Bad In Law & Deserves To Be Quashed. 2. In Law & In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case, The Pcit-1, Mumbai Has Erred In Setting Aside The Assessment Order Dated 20.04.2021 Passed By The Assessing Officer Without Considering The Fact That The Assessing Officer During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings Has Already Gone Through Issue

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Soparkar (Virtually appear)For Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35D

…98 taxmann.com 259 Taxman 49 (Bombay) d. Jeevan Investment & Finance (P.) Ltd. Vs. CIT, City-1, Mumbai [2017] 88 taxmann.com 552 (Bombay) e. PCIT Panaji vs. Zuari Maroc Phosphates Ltd. [2021] 126 taxmann.com 170 (Bombay) f. Rampyari Devi Sarogi vs. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 (SC) g. Vedanta Ltd. vs. CIT [2021] 124 taxmann.com 435 (Bombay) 9. The ld. DR further reiterated that the ld. PCIT has rightly invoked the revisionary jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act and prayed that the same be upheld. 10. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is observed that the ld. PCIT has invok…

Asian Institute of Gastroenterology Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 are allowed

ITA 610/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, S. VenugopalFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…ome 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 24 ITA.Nos.609 & 610/Hyd./2025 Saraogi Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [67 ITR 84] and in Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal [88 ITR 323]. In the instant case, 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 perspect…

Technoblast Mining Corporation, Raigarh vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 307/RPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.307/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Technoblast Mining Corporation 19, 2Nd Floor, Krishna Complex, Chaityana Nagar, Raigarh (C.G.)- 496 001 Pan: Aaeft5992Q

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

…the Order passed by the AO is erroneous, are no longer applicable. Further, it is not out of place to mention that the honorable Supreme Court in the cases of Taradevi Agarwal Vs CIT (1972) 88 ITR 373(SC) and in the case of Rampyari Devi Saraogi Vs CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) have already held that failure to conduct enquiries on part of AO constitutes assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 7 Technoblast Mining Corporation Vs. Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 Therefore, the decisions rendered without taking into considerations the above decisions of the Supreme Court appear to be incorrect.…

Ct. Ramanathan (HUF), Pudukkottai vs. PCIT 1, Madurai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 761/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.761/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2020-21 C.T.Ramanathan(Huf), Income Tax Officer, No.7/45, Ct.Rm.S.House, M.St.S. Street Ward-1, Kulipirai, Pudukottai Dist, Pudukottai. Tamil Nadu-622 402. [Pan: Aaahc0701L] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.V.Subbarayan, Dcit(Retd.) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.M.K.Biju, Cir Dr By Virtual. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Mr.V.Subbarayan, DCIT(Retd.)For Respondent: Mr.M.K.Biju, CIR DR by virtual
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 3

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘बी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI माननीय श्री मनु कुमार धिरर ,न्याधयक सदस्य एवं माननीय श्री एस.आर.रघुनाथा, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON’BLE SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.761/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2020-21 C.T.Ramanathan(HUF), Income Tax Officer, No.7/45, CT.RM.S.House, M.ST.S. Street Ward-1, Kulipirai, Pudukottai Dist, Pudukottai. Tamil Nadu-622 402. [PAN: AAAHC0701L] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Mr.V.Subbarayan,…