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

DIT vs. Jyoti Foundation

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/267/2013HC Delhi09 Jul 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…ot because there is anything wrong with the order if all the facts stated therein are assumed to be correct.” 13. In the said judgment, Delhi High Court had referred to earlier decisions of the Supreme Court in Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) and Tara Devi Aggarwal vs. CIT (1973) 88 ITR 323 (SC), wherein it has been held that where Assessing Officer has accepted a particular contention/issue without any enquiry or evidence whatsoever, the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. After reference to these two decisions, the Delhi High Court observed:-…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Orient Crafts Ltd

ITA/955/2009HC Delhi01 Jun 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 260ASection 28Section 5Section 80H

…made and not because there is anything wrong with the order if all the facts stated therein are assumed to be correct.” 13. In the said judgment, Delhi High Court had referred to earlier decisions of the Supreme Court in Rampyari Devi Sarogiv. 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. After reference to these two decisions, the Delhi High Court observed:-…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Orient Craft Ltd

ITA - 1010 / 2008HC Delhi01 Jun 2012
Section 260ASection 28Section 5Section 80H

…made and not because there is anything wrong with the order if all the facts stated therein are assumed to be correct.” 13. In the said judgment, Delhi High Court had referred to earlier decisions of the Supreme Court in Rampyari Devi Sarogiv. 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. After reference to these two decisions, the Delhi High Court observed:-…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Orient Carft Ltd

ITA - 996 / 2008HC Delhi01 Jun 2012
Section 260ASection 28Section 5Section 80H

…made and not because there is anything wrong with the order if all the facts stated therein are assumed to be correct.” 13. In the said judgment, Delhi High Court had referred to earlier decisions of the Supreme Court in Rampyari Devi Sarogiv. 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. After reference to these two decisions, the Delhi High Court observed:-…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Orient Craft Ltd

ITA - 994 / 2008HC Delhi01 Jun 2012
Section 260ASection 28Section 5Section 80H

…made and not because there is anything wrong with the order if all the facts stated therein are assumed to be correct.” 13. In the said judgment, Delhi High Court had referred to earlier decisions of the Supreme Court in Rampyari Devi Sarogiv. 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. After reference to these two decisions, the Delhi High Court observed:-…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Orient Craft Ltd

ITA - 993 / 2008HC Delhi01 Jun 2012
Section 260ASection 28Section 5Section 80H

…made and not because there is anything wrong with the order if all the facts stated therein are assumed to be correct.” 13. In the said judgment, Delhi High Court had referred to earlier decisions of the Supreme Court in Rampyari Devi Sarogiv. 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. After reference to these two decisions, the Delhi High Court observed:-…

The Commissioner of Income Tax V vs. Nagesh Knitwears P.Ltd

ITA - 591 / 2008HC Delhi01 Jun 2012
Section 260ASection 28Section 5Section 80H

…made and not because there is anything wrong with the order if all the facts stated therein are assumed to be correct.” 13. In the said judgment, Delhi High Court had referred to earlier decisions of the Supreme Court in Rampyari Devi Sarogiv. 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. After reference to these two decisions, the Delhi High Court observed:-…

The Commissioner of Income Tax V vs. Nagesh Knitwears P. Ltd

ITA/591/2008HC Delhi01 Jun 2012
Section 260ASection 28Section 5Section 80H

…made and not because there is anything wrong with the order if all the facts stated therein are assumed to be correct.” 13. In the said judgment, Delhi High Court had referred to earlier decisions of the Supreme Court in Rampyari Devi Sarogiv. 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. After reference to these two decisions, the Delhi High Court observed:-…

Income Tax Officer vs. Dg Housing Projects Ltd

ITA/179/2011HC Delhi01 Mar 2012
Section 24Section 263Section 263d

…and not because there is anything wrong with the order if all the facts stated therein are assumed to be correct.” 13. In the said judgment, Delhi High Court had referred to earlier decisions of the Supreme Court in Rampyari Devi Sarogi vs. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) and Tara Devi Aggarwal vs. CIT (1973) 88 ITR 323 (SC), wherein it has been held that where Assessing Officer has accepted a particular contention/issue without any enquiry or evidence whatsoever, the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. After reference to these two decisions, the Delhi High Court observed:-…

Commissioner of Income Tax - IV vs. Beverages Pvt. Ltd

ITA/1394/2010HC Delhi14 Jan 2011
Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 263Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)

…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).” 12. Be it noted, in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (supra), the Apex Court has also opined that where two views are possible and the assessing officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, the said advertence cannot be given the sanction of law as it w…

Commissioner of Income Tax - IV vs. Beverages Pvt. Ltd

ITA/1391/2010HC Delhi14 Jan 2011
Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 263Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)

…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).” 12. Be it noted, in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (supra), the Apex Court has also opined that where two views are possible and the assessing officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, the said advertence cannot be given the sanction of law as it w…

Commissioner of Income Tax - IV vs. Beverages Pvt. Ltd

ITA/1396/2010HC Delhi14 Jan 2011
Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 263Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)

…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).” 12. Be it noted, in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (supra), the Apex Court has also opined that where two views are possible and the assessing officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, the said advertence cannot be given the sanction of law as it w…

Commissioner Income Tax vs. BLB Ltd

ITA/1878/2010HC Delhi03 Dec 2010
Section 2Section 43BSection 88E

…ITA No.1878/2010 Page 1 of 14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision :03rd December, 2010 + ITA NO. 1878/2010 COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Advocate versus BLB Ltd. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Parkash Kumar and Mr. K.C. Jain, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to s…

CIT vs. Blb Ltd

ITA - 1878 / 2010HC Delhi03 Dec 2010
Section 2Section 43BSection 88E

…ITA No.1878/2010 Page 1 of 14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision :03rd December, 2010 + ITA NO. 1878/2010 COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Advocate versus BLB Ltd. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Parkash Kumar and Mr. K.C. Jain, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to s…

C.I.T vs. Leisure Wear Exports Ltd

ITA/1165/2007HC Delhi14 Sept 2010

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 260Section 263Section 288Section 80Section 80H

…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). 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 ITA No.1165/2007 Page 7 of 17 Officer failed to apply his mind to…

The Commissioner of Income Tax-Xiii vs. Shri Ashish Rajpal

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/485/2008HC Delhi14 May 2009
For Appellant: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.B B Bhagat with Mr Amit Bhagat & Mr Pulkit
Section 131Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 260ASection 271(1)(c)

…e 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 vs CIT, West Bengal & Ors. (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 effect the basic issue of assessment being carried out without adequ…