Sargam Cinema v. CIT

328 ITR 513Supreme Court of India2010#561 most cited

What is Sargam Cinema v. CIT authority for?

For an Assessing Officer to make a valid reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer for the estimation of the cost of construction, the books of accounts must first be rejected under Section 145(3) of the Income-tax Act.

172

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Sargam Cinema · CIT v Sargam Cinema · Section 145(3) · Section 142A · DVO reference · cost of construction estimation · rejection of books of accounts · Assessing Officer powers · valuation · assessment procedure · 328 ITR 513

Also reported as

197 Taxmann 203

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 132Section 153ASection 69BSection 292CSection 115BBESection 132(4)Section 153C

Issues it is cited on

section 142asection 131(1)(d)section 38surrender of incomesection 55asection 150mat creditsection 69baccumulated profitssection 158bdsection 131(1)retracted statement

Judgments citing Sargam Cinema v. CIT

Sanjeev Aggarwal, Chandigarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh

ITA 480/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2018-19
Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153DSection 2(22)(e)

…DIT u/s 132(9D) was without rejecting the books of the accounts which was bad in law 51 and that the subsequent DVO report was also legally not sustainable as per the judicial precedent laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sargam Cinema vs. CIT, 328 ITR 513. 50. The ld. Counsel for the assessee further contended that the ld. AO did not have any incriminating evidence to prove that the assessee incurred out-of-book construction expenses. Therefore, the addition made solely on the basis of the DVO report without any evidence was incorrect. 51. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has further, alternately,…

M/S Kesarwani Zarda Bhandar, Allahabad vs. JCIT(C.C), Allahabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 93/ALLD/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad22 Nov 2024AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Dr Neel Jain CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 250

…s 2003- 04 and 2004-05 in the assessment under section 143(3) and therefore, the addition was unwarranted because the issue was covered by various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court such as Sargam Cinema vs. CIT (2010) 328 ITR 513 (SC) and CIT vs. Lucknow Public Education Society 339 ITR 588 (All). It was submitted that the DVO’s report was also liable to be rejected, because in the report there were a number of defects such as higher rate, incorrect measurement, inspection after a long time and lack of material found in the search. It was submitted that the addition made…

Kesarwani Zarda Bhandar, Allahabad vs. JCIT(C.C), Allahabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 92/ALLD/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad22 Nov 2024AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Dr Neel Jain CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 250

…s 2003- 04 and 2004-05 in the assessment under section 143(3) and therefore, the addition was unwarranted because the issue was covered by various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court such as Sargam Cinema vs. CIT (2010) 328 ITR 513 (SC) and CIT vs. Lucknow Public Education Society 339 ITR 588 (All). It was submitted that the DVO’s report was also liable to be rejected, because in the report there were a number of defects such as higher rate, incorrect measurement, inspection after a long time and lack of material found in the search. It was submitted that the addition made…

Kesarwani Zarda Bhandar, Allahabad vs. JCIT(C.C), Allahabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 91/ALLD/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad22 Nov 2024AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Dr Neel Jain CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 250

…s 2003- 04 and 2004-05 in the assessment under section 143(3) and therefore, the addition was unwarranted because the issue was covered by various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court such as Sargam Cinema vs. CIT (2010) 328 ITR 513 (SC) and CIT vs. Lucknow Public Education Society 339 ITR 588 (All). It was submitted that the DVO’s report was also liable to be rejected, because in the report there were a number of defects such as higher rate, incorrect measurement, inspection after a long time and lack of material found in the search. It was submitted that the addition made…

Kesarwani Zarda Bhandar, Allahabad vs. JCIT(C.C), Allahabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 90/ALLD/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad22 Nov 2024AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Dr Neel Jain CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 250

…s 2003- 04 and 2004-05 in the assessment under section 143(3) and therefore, the addition was unwarranted because the issue was covered by various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court such as Sargam Cinema vs. CIT (2010) 328 ITR 513 (SC) and CIT vs. Lucknow Public Education Society 339 ITR 588 (All). It was submitted that the DVO’s report was also liable to be rejected, because in the report there were a number of defects such as higher rate, incorrect measurement, inspection after a long time and lack of material found in the search. It was submitted that the addition made…

Kesarwani Zarda Bhandar, Allahabad vs. JCIT(C.C.), Allahabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 89/ALLD/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad22 Nov 2024AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Dr Neel Jain CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 250

…s 2003- 04 and 2004-05 in the assessment under section 143(3) and therefore, the addition was unwarranted because the issue was covered by various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court such as Sargam Cinema vs. CIT (2010) 328 ITR 513 (SC) and CIT vs. Lucknow Public Education Society 339 ITR 588 (All). It was submitted that the DVO’s report was also liable to be rejected, because in the report there were a number of defects such as higher rate, incorrect measurement, inspection after a long time and lack of material found in the search. It was submitted that the addition made…

M/S Kesarwani Jarda Bhandar, Allahabad vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Allahabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 80/ALLD/2023[F.Y. 2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad22 Nov 2024
For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Dr Neel Jain CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 250

…s 2003- 04 and 2004-05 in the assessment under section 143(3) and therefore, the addition was unwarranted because the issue was covered by various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court such as Sargam Cinema vs. CIT (2010) 328 ITR 513 (SC) and CIT vs. Lucknow Public Education Society 339 ITR 588 (All). It was submitted that the DVO’s report was also liable to be rejected, because in the report there were a number of defects such as higher rate, incorrect measurement, inspection after a long time and lack of material found in the search. It was submitted that the addition made…

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2938/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…the investment as income of the assessee as soon as the latter's explanation happened to be rejected. On that view, the Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessee and cancelled the assessment made by the ITO.” iv) 107 ITR 938 (SC) Roshan Di Hatt vs. CIT v) 328 ITR 513 (SC) Sargam Cinema vs. CIT vi) 131 ITR 597 (SC) K.P. Varghese vs. ITO vii) 261 ITR 664 (Del) CIT vs. Naresh Khattar (HUF) viii) 328 ITR 516 (Del) CIT vs. Naveen Gera ix) 316 ITR 46 (Del.) CIT vs. Shakuntala Devi x) 335 ITR 572 (Del.) CIT vs. Bajrang Lal Bansal xi) ITA no. 610/2012, Dated 19.10.2012 (Del) CIT vs Dinesh Jain HUF xii) ITA No. 176/20…

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2937/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…the investment as income of the assessee as soon as the latter's explanation happened to be rejected. On that view, the Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessee and cancelled the assessment made by the ITO.” iv) 107 ITR 938 (SC) Roshan Di Hatt vs. CIT v) 328 ITR 513 (SC) Sargam Cinema vs. CIT vi) 131 ITR 597 (SC) K.P. Varghese vs. ITO vii) 261 ITR 664 (Del) CIT vs. Naresh Khattar (HUF) viii) 328 ITR 516 (Del) CIT vs. Naveen Gera ix) 316 ITR 46 (Del.) CIT vs. Shakuntala Devi x) 335 ITR 572 (Del.) CIT vs. Bajrang Lal Bansal xi) ITA no. 610/2012, Dated 19.10.2012 (Del) CIT vs Dinesh Jain HUF xii) ITA No. 176/20…

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2936/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…the investment as income of the assessee as soon as the latter's explanation happened to be rejected. On that view, the Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessee and cancelled the assessment made by the ITO.” iv) 107 ITR 938 (SC) Roshan Di Hatt vs. CIT v) 328 ITR 513 (SC) Sargam Cinema vs. CIT vi) 131 ITR 597 (SC) K.P. Varghese vs. ITO vii) 261 ITR 664 (Del) CIT vs. Naresh Khattar (HUF) viii) 328 ITR 516 (Del) CIT vs. Naveen Gera ix) 316 ITR 46 (Del.) CIT vs. Shakuntala Devi x) 335 ITR 572 (Del.) CIT vs. Bajrang Lal Bansal xi) ITA no. 610/2012, Dated 19.10.2012 (Del) CIT vs Dinesh Jain HUF xii) ITA No. 176/20…

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2935/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…the investment as income of the assessee as soon as the latter's explanation happened to be rejected. On that view, the Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessee and cancelled the assessment made by the ITO.” iv) 107 ITR 938 (SC) Roshan Di Hatt vs. CIT v) 328 ITR 513 (SC) Sargam Cinema vs. CIT vi) 131 ITR 597 (SC) K.P. Varghese vs. ITO vii) 261 ITR 664 (Del) CIT vs. Naresh Khattar (HUF) viii) 328 ITR 516 (Del) CIT vs. Naveen Gera ix) 316 ITR 46 (Del.) CIT vs. Shakuntala Devi x) 335 ITR 572 (Del.) CIT vs. Bajrang Lal Bansal xi) ITA no. 610/2012, Dated 19.10.2012 (Del) CIT vs Dinesh Jain HUF xii) ITA No. 176/20…

Shri Hari & Co Owners, Kaithal vs. Pr. CIT, Chandigarh -1, Rohtak

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 403/CHANDI/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…h an event, referral to DVO was not according to law. We draw your attention to the following cases decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court and Punjab & Haryana High Court on the same point. CIT Vs. Chohan Resorts (2013) 359 ITR 394 (P&H) Sangam Cinema Vs. CIT(2010) 328 ITR 513 (SC) In view of above decisions by Hon’ble Courts, reference to DVO was void ab initio and any inference drawn from the report also has no valid basis. In view of all the facts stated above, you will understand that there is nothing wrong and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. We request you to please drop the proceedings u/s 263. Thanks and…

Shri Hari & Co Owners, Kaithal vs. Pr. CIT, Chandigarh -1, Rohtak

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 402/CHANDI/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…h an event, referral to DVO was not according to law. We draw your attention to the following cases decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court and Punjab & Haryana High Court on the same point. CIT Vs. Chohan Resorts (2013) 359 ITR 394 (P&H) Sangam Cinema Vs. CIT(2010) 328 ITR 513 (SC) In view of above decisions by Hon’ble Courts, reference to DVO was void ab initio and any inference drawn from the report also has no valid basis. In view of all the facts stated above, you will understand that there is nothing wrong and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. We request you to please drop the proceedings u/s 263. Thanks and…

The DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Umang H. Thakkar, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 2548/AHD/2008[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jul 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 2150/Ahd/2008 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 बनाम Shri Umang Hiralal Thakkar, The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Dharmadev House, Income-Tax, Shyamal Cross Road, Satellite, Central Circle 1(1), Ahmedabad – 380015 Ahmedabad Pan : Aavpt 8621 R आयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 2548/Ahd/2008 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 बनाम Shri Umang Hiralal Thakkar, The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. 305, Sahajanand Plaza, Bhatta Income-Tax, Ch Ar Rasta, Paldi, Ahmedabad Central Circle 1(1), Pan : Aavpt 8621 R Ahmedabad अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" "" यथ" "" यथ"/ (Respondent) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" यथ" िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar & Shri Parin Shah, Ar ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadav, Cit-Dr तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2024 सुनवाई क" क" तारीख सुनवाई सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30.07.2024 घोषणा घोषणा घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, AR &For Respondent: Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadav, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 250(6)

…sessee before us was that determination of cost of construction was referred to the DVO by the AO without rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee, which he pointed out has been categorically held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sargam Cinema, 328 ITR 513 (SC) to be not in accordance with law. He further pointed out that identical reference made in the case of Sanjay H. Thakkar, brother of the assessee, was deleted by the ITAT, finding the same to be based on an invalid reference to DVO, on the basis of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sargam Cinema (supra). This decision of t…

Shri Umang Hiralal Thakkar, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Cent.Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 2150/AHD/2008[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jul 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 2150/Ahd/2008 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 बनाम Shri Umang Hiralal Thakkar, The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Dharmadev House, Income-Tax, Shyamal Cross Road, Satellite, Central Circle 1(1), Ahmedabad – 380015 Ahmedabad Pan : Aavpt 8621 R आयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 2548/Ahd/2008 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 बनाम Shri Umang Hiralal Thakkar, The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. 305, Sahajanand Plaza, Bhatta Income-Tax, Ch Ar Rasta, Paldi, Ahmedabad Central Circle 1(1), Pan : Aavpt 8621 R Ahmedabad अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" "" यथ" "" यथ"/ (Respondent) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" यथ" िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar & Shri Parin Shah, Ar ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadav, Cit-Dr तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2024 सुनवाई क" क" तारीख सुनवाई सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30.07.2024 घोषणा घोषणा घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, AR &For Respondent: Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadav, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 250(6)

…sessee before us was that determination of cost of construction was referred to the DVO by the AO without rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee, which he pointed out has been categorically held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sargam Cinema, 328 ITR 513 (SC) to be not in accordance with law. He further pointed out that identical reference made in the case of Sanjay H. Thakkar, brother of the assessee, was deleted by the ITAT, finding the same to be based on an invalid reference to DVO, on the basis of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sargam Cinema (supra). This decision of t…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(5), Aurangabad., Maharashtra vs. Royal Estates, Aurangabad, Maharashtra

In the result, the appeals of Revenue for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13

ITA 34/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. BoraFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 69

…e SLP of the Revenue filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the decision of Hon’ble High Court has been dismissed in SLP No. CC 187 of 2007 dated 07.03.2007. 10. Applying the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sargam Cinema Vs. CIT (2010) 328 ITR 513 to the facts of the assessee’s case, the Ld. CIT(A) recorded the finding that the Ld. AO failed to reject the books of account of the assessee for AY 2013-14 before making reference to the DVO for verifying the cost incurred for the project undertaken by the assessee and therefore no addition can be made on the basis of difference of cost of cons…

Income Tax Officer Ward-1(5), Aurangabad, Maharashtra vs. Royal Estates, Aurangabad, Maharashtra

In the result, the appeals of Revenue for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13

ITA 33/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. BoraFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 69

…e SLP of the Revenue filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the decision of Hon’ble High Court has been dismissed in SLP No. CC 187 of 2007 dated 07.03.2007. 10. Applying the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sargam Cinema Vs. CIT (2010) 328 ITR 513 to the facts of the assessee’s case, the Ld. CIT(A) recorded the finding that the Ld. AO failed to reject the books of account of the assessee for AY 2013-14 before making reference to the DVO for verifying the cost incurred for the project undertaken by the assessee and therefore no addition can be made on the basis of difference of cost of cons…

Royal Swan Charitable Minority Trust, Nanded vs. ITO (Exemption), Nanded

In the result, appeals of the assessee for all the three AYs 2012-13,

ITA 1130/PUN/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jul 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 133ASection 142A(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…nd 11 of the appellate order. The contention of the assessee was that without rejecting the books of account, the Ld. AO could not have referred the matter to the DVO on the strength of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Sargam Cinema Vs. CIT 328 ITR 513 (SC). We have perused the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court (supra) and are of the view that the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly held that it is distinguishable on facts. In that case the Tribunal had recorded a categorical finding that the books were never rejected. This fact had not been considered by the High Court. In the case at hand, it is an ad…

Royal Swan Charitable Minority Trust, Nanded vs. ITO (Exemption), Nanded

In the result, appeals of the assessee for all the three AYs 2012-13,

ITA 1129/PUN/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jul 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 133ASection 142A(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…nd 11 of the appellate order. The contention of the assessee was that without rejecting the books of account, the Ld. AO could not have referred the matter to the DVO on the strength of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Sargam Cinema Vs. CIT 328 ITR 513 (SC). We have perused the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court (supra) and are of the view that the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly held that it is distinguishable on facts. In that case the Tribunal had recorded a categorical finding that the books were never rejected. This fact had not been considered by the High Court. In the case at hand, it is an ad…

Royal Swan Charitable Minority Trust, Nanded vs. ITO (Exemption), Nanded

In the result, appeals of the assessee for all the three AYs 2012-13,

ITA 1128/PUN/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 133ASection 142A(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…nd 11 of the appellate order. The contention of the assessee was that without rejecting the books of account, the Ld. AO could not have referred the matter to the DVO on the strength of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Sargam Cinema Vs. CIT 328 ITR 513 (SC). We have perused the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court (supra) and are of the view that the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly held that it is distinguishable on facts. In that case the Tribunal had recorded a categorical finding that the books were never rejected. This fact had not been considered by the High Court. In the case at hand, it is an ad…