Saraf Gramodyog Sansthan v. ITO

108 ITD 115Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2007#9294 most cited

What is Saraf Gramodyog Sansthan v. ITO authority for?

Section 292B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which deals with the rectification of certain mistakes, does not extend to correcting errors in the recording of reasons for reassessment proceedings. Invalid proceedings for assuming jurisdiction cannot be rectified under this section.

11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Saraf Gramodyog Sansthan v. ITO · 108 ITD 115 · Section 292B · reassessment notice · reasons recorded · assumption of jurisdiction · curable irregularities

Issues it is cited on

section 13(1)(c)(ii)section 13(1)(b)section 164(2)section 13(1)(d)section 164section 11(5)section 148(2)section 13(1)(c)section 13(1)section 16section 292bincome escaping assessment

Judgments citing Saraf Gramodyog Sansthan v. ITO

Institute Management Committee Iti Jhalawar, Jhalawar vs. ITO Ward Jhalawar, Jhalawar

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 41/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Assessee In This Appeal Has Raised The Following Grounds;

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 10Section 144Section 147Section 151Section 234

…ment of Ss 147/148 were satisfied, including limitation period therein Kindly refer Sumit Balkrishan Gupta v/s ACIT 104 CCH379(Bom.HC)(2019). Thus, cannot be said that it is an irregularity curable u/s.292B— (h) In the case of Saraf Gramodyog Sansthan vs. ITO 108 ITD 115(Agra)it has been held that Further, AO had referred to wrong bank account number in the reasons recorded by him—Sec. 292B cannot take care of any mistake in recording the reasons because that section refers to "return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceedings"—It does not refer to the reasons recorded by the AO—Any invalid proce…

Institute Management Committee Iti Jhalawar, Jhalawar vs. ITO Ward Jhalawar, Jhalawar

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 39/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Assessee In This Appeal Has Raised The Following Grounds;

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 10Section 144Section 147Section 151Section 234

…ment of Ss 147/148 were satisfied, including limitation period therein Kindly refer Sumit Balkrishan Gupta v/s ACIT 104 CCH379(Bom.HC)(2019). Thus, cannot be said that it is an irregularity curable u/s.292B— (h) In the case of Saraf Gramodyog Sansthan vs. ITO 108 ITD 115(Agra)it has been held that Further, AO had referred to wrong bank account number in the reasons recorded by him—Sec. 292B cannot take care of any mistake in recording the reasons because that section refers to "return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceedings"—It does not refer to the reasons recorded by the AO—Any invalid proce…

Pradeep Kumar, Jhujhunu vs. ITO Ward -2, Jhujhunu

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 370/JPR/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 370/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2011-12. cuke Shri Pradeep Kumar The Income Tax Officer, Vs. S/o Dhanraj, ACTO, Ward 2, Choudhary Colony, W. No. 18, Jhunjhunu. Chirawa, The. Chirawa, Jhunjhunu. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. AUSPK 0411 F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta, Advocate. jktLo dh vksj ls@ Reve…

Premwati Suman, Agra vs. ITO-1(3), Agra

In the result both appeals are allowed

ITA 393/AGR/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenasmt. Premwati Suman, Vs.. Income Tax Officer- 1(3), 1/1, Hig Flats, Sanjay Place, Agra. Agra. Pan: Bnvps9819N (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri. Ranjeet Suman, Vs.. Income Tax Officer- 1(3), 1/1, Hig Flats, Sanjay Place, Agra. Agra. Pan: Bnlps9622P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151

…supplemented by affidavits. The imposition of (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09) that requirement ensures against an arbitrary exercise of powers under s. 148.Reiterating the above settled position the ITAT at Agra in the case of SarafGramodyogSansthan vs. ITO (2007) 108 ITD 115 (Agra) after following the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of JamunaLalKabra (supra) has held that reopening cannot be justified on any other material other than referred in the reasons recorded. 20. Keeping in view the position of law as discussed above we have no hesitation to conclude that learned CIT(A) was legally unjus…

Satyadev Singh, Mathura vs. ITO 3(4), Mathura

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 243/AGR/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenashri Satyadev Singh, Village Vs..Ito,3,(4), Jaiswa, Post Bakla, Mathura. Mathura. Panno.Ahbps7182D (Assessee) (Revenue)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(15)

…the part of the ‘AO’ to show that any income liable to Tax has escaped Assessment warranting recourse to Notice u/s 148 of the IT Act’. The assessee relied on: ‘Bir Bahadur Singh Sijwali vs. ITO’, 68 SOT 197 Delhi and (i) ‘Saraf Gramodyog Sansthan vs. ITO’, 108 ITD 115 (Agra). (ii) Though the assessee’s reliance on these decisions has been taken note of at 5. page 4 of the impugned order, they have not been dealt with by the ld. CIT(A). The issue raised by the assessee has, thus, not been decided. 6. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has contended that the Authorities below have failed to appreciate that the r…

M/S. Dayanand Contractor, Rohtak vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

In the result, original

ITA 2807/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Kumar Kamal & Lalit MohanFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 263

…) ITANo. 1331/D/2015 Praveen Kumar Jain v ITO dated viii) 22.1.2015 ITA No. 3534/D/2014(Del Tri) Munni Devi vs ITO68 STO 197 (Del) ix) Bir Bahadur Singh Sijawali 57 ITR 532 (SC) Parimisetti Setharamamma vs. CIT x) 159 ITD 329 (Asr) Sh. Amrik Singh vs ITO xi) 108 ITD 115(Agra) Saraf Gramodyog Sansthan vs ITO xii) ITANo. 3873/D/2016 xiii) Assessment Year 2009-10 dated 23.01.2017 Zahid Hassan xiv) 15 In view of the above, the additional ground that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in not directing the learned Assessing officer to include the income from 22 ITA.No…

M/S. Dayanand Contractor, Rohtak vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

In the result, original

ITA 2806/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Kumar Kamal & Lalit MohanFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 263

…) ITANo. 1331/D/2015 Praveen Kumar Jain v ITO dated viii) 22.1.2015 ITA No. 3534/D/2014(Del Tri) Munni Devi vs ITO68 STO 197 (Del) ix) Bir Bahadur Singh Sijawali 57 ITR 532 (SC) Parimisetti Setharamamma vs. CIT x) 159 ITD 329 (Asr) Sh. Amrik Singh vs ITO xi) 108 ITD 115(Agra) Saraf Gramodyog Sansthan vs ITO xii) ITANo. 3873/D/2016 xiii) Assessment Year 2009-10 dated 23.01.2017 Zahid Hassan xiv) 15 In view of the above, the additional ground that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in not directing the learned Assessing officer to include the income from 22 ITA.No…

M/S. Dayanand Contractor, Rohtak vs. ITO, Rohtak

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2027/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, & Sh. Lalit Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Shri T. Vasanthan Sr. DR
Section 144A

…) ITANo. 1331/D/2015 Praveen Kumar Jain v ITO dated viii) 22.1.2015 ITA No. 3534/D/2014(Del Tri) Munni Devi vs ITO68 STO ix) 197 (Del) Bir Bahadur Singh Sijawali 57 ITR 532 (SC) Parimisetti Setharamamma vs. CIT x) 159 ITD 329 (Asr) Sh. Amrik Singh vs ITO xi) 108 ITD 115(Agra) Saraf Gramodyog Sansthan vs ITO xii) ITANo. 3873/D/2016 xiii) Assessment Year 2009-10 dated 23.01.2017 Zahid xiv) Hassan 15 In view of the above, the additional ground that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in not directing the learned Assessing officer to include the income from contract w…

Sh. Pritam Kumar Sharma, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 6748/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv., Sh. AshishFor Respondent: Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…edings is quash. As the reassessment itself is quashed, all other issues on merits of the additions, in the impugned assessment proceedings, are rendered academic and infructuous. {Para 10} ITAT Agra Bench in the case of SarafGramodyogSansthan v. ITA [2007] 108 ITD 115 (Agra) The crucial expression for assumption of jurisdiction under section 147 is 'any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year'. Thus, the Assessing Officer has to record in the reasons that a particular item which was chargeable to tax, has escaped assessment. In the instant case, the Assessing Officer had wri…

Munni Devi, Rewari vs. ITO, Rewari

In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal stands allowed

ITA 3534/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Sept 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2007-08 Munni Devi Vs. Ito, Ward-2 W/O Sh. Mohar Singh, Rewari Vill. & Po Asia-Ki-Gorawas, Rewari (Pan: Bivpd3594G) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. & Sh. Piyush Kr. Kamal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amrit Lal, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘SMC-II’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2007-08 Munni Devi Vs. ITO, Ward-2 W/o Sh. Mohar Singh, Rewari Vill. & PO Asia-Ki-Gorawas, Rewari (PAN: BIVPD3594G) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. & Sh. Piyush Kr. Kamal, Adv. Revenue by : Shri Amrit Lal, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 08-09-2016 Date of order : 15-09-2016 ORDER The Assessee has filed the Appeal against the Order dated 8.5.2014 of the Ld. CIT(A)-Rohtak pertaining to assessment year 2007-08 and raised the following grounds:- 1. That the…

DCIT, Cir-22(1), Mumbai vs. Ashish S. Jobanputra, Mumbai

ITA 2566/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2015AY 2009-10
For Respondent: Shri Raghuveer Madnappa
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 68

…fied, that the assessee himself had pleaded that disallowance u/s. 68 if at all was to be made same had to be restricted to Rs.1.05 crores. The FAA held that the cases cited by the assessee E- Land International (P) Ltd. (26 DTR 113) Saraf Gramudyog Sansthan (108 ITD 115) were no held, that the facts of the case under appeal were totally different. Accordingly,he held that the disallowance had to be made for the sundry creditors outstanding.Finally,he upheld the addition of Rs.1.05 crores out of disallowance made of Rs. 3.95 crores. 4.During the course of hearing before us the ,Authorised Representative (AR) stat…