Renu Gupta v. CIT

BHAVENDRA HASMUKHLAL PATADIA. LEGAL HEIR OF HASMUKHLAL PATADIA.,CUTTACK vs. ITO WARD-!(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.125/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2015-2016) Bhavendra Hasmukhlal Patadia, Vs Ito, Ward-1(1), Cuttack Legal Heir Of Hasmukhlal Patadia, Nayabazar, Chauliaganj, Cuttack-753004 Pan No. :Adapp 6256 G (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Deepak Shah, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Pr.Cit, Cuttack, Passed In Itba/Com/F/17/2019-20/1026790827(1), Dated 19.03.2020, For The Assessment Year 2015-2016. Head On The Question Of Condonation Of Delay 2. On Perusal Of The Appeal Record, It Is Found That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 784 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Dated 11.07.2022 Along With Affidavit Stating Therein That Due To Continuous Lockdown On Account Of Spread Of Covid-19, The Assessee Could Not File The Present Appeal In Time, Therefore, He Prayed That Delay Of 784 Days In Filing The Present Appeal May Kindly Be Condoned. On The Other Hand, Ld. Cit-Dr Did Not Object To The Above Submission Of The Ld. Ar. Considering The Above, We Condone

…this is a case of non-enquiry and not inadequate enquiry. Therefore, the order of the Assessing Officer is certainly erroneous. There is no dispute that the order of the Assessing Officer is prejudicial to the Revenue". vi.) In the case of Renu Gupta vs. CIT (301 ITR 45), the submissions of the assessee were placed on record by the AO. without causing any inquiry. The Hon'ble Rajasthan high Court held that the assessment order was passed by the AO. in a routine manner without applying his mind. Hence the revision order passed by the CIT was justified. 13 vii.) In the case of CIT vs. Deepak Kumar Garg (299 ITR 43…

KALINGA INSTITUTE OF INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY (KIIT),PATIA vs. CIT (EXEMP.) HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2017-18 Kalinga Institute Of Industrial Kalinga Institute Of Industrial Vs. Cit (Exemptions), Cit (Exemptions), Technology (Kiit), Plot No.383, Technology (Kiit), Plot No.383, Hyderabad 384, 384, Kiit Kiit Campus Campus-1, Patia, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaatk 3103 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agarwalla, Ar S.K.Agarwalla, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 13 /9 9/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/9 9/2022 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Ag This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Ainst The Order Of The Ld Cit(E), Hyderabad Hyderabad Passed U/S.263 Of The Act Dated Dated 14.3.2022 In Appeal No.Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2021 Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2021-22/1040690424(1) For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Shri S.K.Agarwala, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri S.K.Agarwala, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri S.K.Agarwala, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue. M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

…hus, this is a case of non-enquiry and not inadequate enquiry. Therefore, the order of the Assessing Officer is certainly erroneous. There is no dispute that the order of the Assessing Officer is prejudicial to the Revenue". In the case of Renu Gupta vs. CIT (301 ITR 45), the submissions of the assessee were placed on record by the A.O. without causing any inquiry. The Hon'ble Rajasthan high Court held that the assessment order was passed by the A.O. in a routine manner without applying his mind. In the case of CIT vs. Deepak Kumar Garg (299 ITR 435), it was held by the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in para-4…

SAROJ KUMAR MISHRA,ATHAGARARH vs. PR.CIT-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiasaroj Kumar Mishra, Khuntuni, Athagarh, Dist : Cuttack-754029 Pan No.Abkpm 8302 N ………………Assessee Versus

…mmissioner was right in invoking his powers u/s.263 of the Act as the order has become erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. To the similar effect, ld.CIT-DR relied on the decision of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Renu Gupta, reported in 301 ITR 45 (Rajasthan). It was the submission that on account of non-application of mind, lack of enquiry on the part of the AO, the order passed u/s.263 of the Act by the ld. Pr.CIT, is liable to be upheld. 4. In reply to the above submission of the ld. CIT-DR, the ld. AR placed before the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Orissa in the c…

RAVI METALLICS LIMITED,ROURKELA vs. PR.CIT, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaravi Metallics Limited, I/10, Civil Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan No.Adqps 4031 G ………………Assessee Versus Pr.Cit, Sambalpur ………………..Revenue Shri P.R.Mohanty, Ar For The Assessee Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr For The Revenue Date Of Hearing : 30/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, Passed U/S.263 Of The Act In Case No.Pcit/Sbp/263/26/2018-19, Dated 29.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. Heard On The Question Of Condonation Of Delay 2. On Perusal Of The Record, We Found That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 686 Days. In This Regard, Ld. Ar Filed An Application Along With Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay, Wherein It Has Been Submitted That The Delay Occurred In Filing The Present Appeal Is Neither Intentional Nor Deliberate But Due To Unfortunate & Unavoidable Circumstances Beyond

…hus, this is a case of non-enquiry and not inadequate enquiry. Therefore, the order of the Assessing Officer is certainly erroneous. There is no dispute that the order of the Assessing Officer is prejudicial to the Revenue". In the case of Renu Gupta vs. CIT (301 ITR 45), the submissions of the assessee were placed on record by the A.O. without causing any inquiry. The Hon'ble Rajasthan high Court held that the assessment order was passed by the A.O. in a routine manner without applying his mind. In the case of CIT vs. Deepak Kumar Garg (299 ITR 435), it was held by the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in para-4…

SMT. MAMTA SHARMA,BARGARH vs. PRINCIPAL CIT (CENTRAL) , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shrichandra Mohan Garg & Manish Boradassessment Year :2012-13 Smt. Mamta Sharma, Ward Vs. Pr. Cit(Central), Visakhapatnam No.10, Near Govt. Bus Stand, Dist: Baragarh Pan/Gir No.Agvps 4382 G (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 21/10/ 2021 Date Of Pronouncement :10/12/2021 O R D E R

…of the Act. 4. Reliance is also placed on the following decisions: a) Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Nagal Garment Industries (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT (113 taxmann.com 4) (para-12) b) Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Renu Gupta vs. CIT (301 ITR 45) c) Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs, Deepak Kumar Garg (299 ITR 435) (para-4) d) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rampyari Devi Saraogi (67 ITR 84) The A.O. was required to examine the issue in the proper perspective and he could not be perfunctory in his approach. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi Hig…

SHRI KRISHNA MOHAN CHUORSIYA,RAJGARH vs. THE PR. CIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Shri Krishna Mohan Pr. Cit Choursiya(Prop. Of M/S Laxmi Ujjain Mp बनाम/ Auto Parts) Vs. Ward No.14, Bus Stand, Kurawar Rajgarh(M.P.) (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aempc3634G

…stt. Commissioner oflncome IT AT A Bench Delhi 6 Tax Commissioner of Income-tax v.Deepak Kumar Garg 299 ITR 435 (Madhya 7. Pradesh) Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mahavar Traders 220 ITR 167 (Madhya 8. Pradesh) 9. Smt. Renu Gupta v. Commissioner oflncome-tax 301 ITR 45 (Rajasthan) 10. PT. Lashkari Ram v. Commissioner of Income-tax 272 ITR 309 (Allahabad) Commissioner of Income-tax, Patiala v. Himachal Pradesh 186 Taxman 105 (Himachal 11. Financial Corpn. Pradesh) Commissioner of income tax V/s Prafulla C.Pant And 176 Taxman 184 12 Dharam Veer JJ (Uttrakhand) Mofussil Warehouse & Trading Co.Ltd.V/s Commissioner 2…

SHRI SHALIGRAM BAROD, ,INDORE vs. PR. CIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble’ Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Shri Shaligram Barod, Pr. Cit-I, Ah/29, Hig, Sukhliya Indore बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. Ahfpp4068H Appellant By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit-Dr

…tt. Commissioner of IT AT A Bench Delhi lncome Tax 6 Commissioner of Income-tax v.Deepak Kumar 299 ITR 435 (Madhya Garg 7. Pradesh) Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mahavar Traders 220 ITR 167 (Madhya 8. Pradesh) 9. Smt. Renu Gupta v. Commissioner oflncome-tax 301 ITR 45 (Rajasthan) 21 Shaligram Borad 10. PT. Lashkari Ram v. Commissioner of Income-tax 272 ITR 309 (Allahabad) Commissioner of Income-tax, Patia1a v. Himachal 186 Taxman 105 Pradesh Financial Corpn. (Himachal 11. Pradesh) Commissioner of income tax Vis Prafulla C.Pant 176 Taxman 184 And 12 Dharam Veer JJ (Uttrakhand) Mofussi1 Warehouse & Trading Co.L…

M/S. SANEE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE PR CIT , BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

…Ltd 345 ITR 135 (Delhi HC) (x) Gee Vee Enterprises V/s Addl. CIT 99 ITR 375 (DelhiHC) (xi) Bhushan Steel Ltd V/s ACIT ITAT A Bench Delhi (xii) CIT V Deepak Kumar Garg 299 ITR 435 (M.P) (xiii) CIT V Mahavar Traders 220 ITR 167 (M.P) (xiv) Smt. Renu Gupta v CIT 301 ITR 45 (Rajasthan) (xv) PT Lashkari Ram V CIT 272 ITR 309 (Allahabad) (xvi) CIT V Himachal Pradesh Financial Corpn. 186 Taxman 105 (Himachal Pradesh) (xvii) CIT v/s Prafulla C Pant and Dharam Veer JJ 176 ITANo.742/Ind/2018 Taxman 184 (Uttrakhand) (xviii) Mofussil Warehouse & Trading Co. Ltd V CIT 238 ITR 867(Madras) (xix) Durgalal & Co. V CIT 220 ITR 4…

M/S. BHANDARI HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE,INDORE vs. THE PR. CIT-1, INDORE

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

…Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax IT AT A ~ench Delhi Commissioner of Income-tax v.Deepak Kumar Garg 299 ITR 435 (Madhya 7. Pradesh) Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mahavar Traders 220 ITR 167 (Madhya 8. Pradesh) 9. Smt. Renu Gupta v. Commissioner of Income-tax 301 ITR 45 (Rajasthan) 10. PT. Lashkari Ram v. Commissioner of Income-tax 272 ITR 309 (Allahabad) 11 Commissioner of Income-tax, Patiala v. Himachal Pradesh 186 Taxman 105 (Himachal . Financial Corpn. Pradesh) Commissioner of income tax V/s Prafulla C.Pant And Dharam 176 Taxman 184 12 Veer JJ (Uttrakhand) Mofussil Warehouse & Trading Co. Ltd.V/s Commissione…