Smt. Sumitra Devi Khirwal v. CIT

84 ITR 26High Court1972#11042 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 148 Section 154 Section 263 Section 41

Issues it is cited on

section 33b assessment order erroneous erroneous and prejudicial section 263 section 26 section 154 appeal before the tribunal section 147 transfer person interest section 143(3)

Judgments citing Smt. Sumitra Devi Khirwal v. CIT

HOTEL SAI SIDDHI PVT. LTD.,,NASHIK vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-1, NASHIK

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

ITA 687/PUN/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Hotel Sai Siddhi Pvt. Ltd. Pcit-1, Nashik 3/4, Poush Sector, Lekha Nagar, Vs. Mumbai Agra Road, Nashik – 422009 Pan: Aabch4310G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanket Joshi Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 08-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-01-2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 263

…inguishing the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bhagat Shyam & Co. reported in (1991) 188 ITR 608 (Allahabad) and the decision of 11 Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Smt. Sumitra Devi Khirwal vs. CIT reported in (1972) 84 ITR 26 (Cal) relied on by the Ld. DR has observed as under: “7. The ld. AR relied on certain orders of the Tribunal, including the order dt. 02- 11-2021 passed by the Pune Tribunal in Alfa Laval Lund and AB Vs. CIT (ITA No.1287/Pun/2017), holding the initiation of revision proceedings, based only on the proposal sent by the AO for making the revision, lac…

ITO, WARD- 44(2), NEW DELHI vs. THREEPENCE CRAFT , NEW DELHI

ITA 5995/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 195(2)Section 263

…proposal sent by the AO for making the revision, lacked jurisdiction. Per contra, the ld. DR relied on certain decisions in support of his case. The first such case is the judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in Smt. Sumitra Devi Khirwal Vs. CIT (1972) 84 ITR 26 (Cal.) in which the revision was upheld. In that case, the Commissioner did not himself call for any record but certain records were placed before him and he acted thereon. The assessee's contention before the Hon'ble High Court that the revision in such circumstances was not valid, came to be jettisoned by the Hon'ble High Court. What is significa…

THREEPENCE CRAFT,NEW DELHI vs. CIT- IX, NEW DELHI

ITA 2234/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 195(2)Section 263

SYNWAVE INDUSTRIES,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1133/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Y.K. Batra, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT-D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 263

…hus, the issue was verified by the Assessing Officer and after verifying the same has passed the reopening order u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. The ld. A.R. relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Smt. Sumitra Devi Khirwal vs. CIT 84 ITR 26. 6. The ld. D.R. submitted that the Pr. CIT has rightly set aside the assessment order as the Assessing Officer has not verified the accommodation entries totaling to Rs. 17,94,345/- received from Umiya I.T.A No. 1133/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No. 5 Synwave Industries vs. Pr. CIT Industries, Perfect Steel Corp. and Bhoomi Traders, Prop. Alpeshku…

VOLKSWAGEN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-4,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 148/PUN/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethtra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri M.M. Chate

Section 263

…posal sent by the AO for making the revision, lacked jurisdiction. Per contra, the ld. DR relied on certain decisions in support of his case. The first such case is the judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in Smt. Sumitra Devi Khirwal Vs. CIT (1972) 84 ITR 26 (Cal.) in which the revision was upheld. In that case, the Commissioner did not himself call for any record but certain records were placed before him and he acted thereon. The assessee’s contention before the Hon’ble High Court that the revision in such circumstances was not valid, came to be jettisoned by the Hon’ble High Court. What is signif…

VOLKSWAGEN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-4,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 147/PUN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethtra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri M.M. Chate

Section 263

SHRI RAJINDER SINGH,SHIMLA vs. PR.CIT-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 28/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt.Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Rajinder Singh बनाम Pr. Cit-1 M/S R.S. Traders, Gunj Road Chandigarh Shimla

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…the context of facts of the present case, it would be relevant to refer to the well-established jurisprudence laid down by the Hon’ble Courts in this regard from time to time. The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Smt. Sumitra Devi Khirwal Vs. CIT (1972) 84 ITR 26 had an occasion to examine similar contention on behalf of the assessee in that case that where it was contended that the Commissioner did not himself call for any records but certain records were placed before him and he acted thereon and therefore, the whole proceedings are vitiated. The Hon’ble High Court didn’t agree with the said contention an…

ITO, WARD-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ANAMIKA DEALCOM PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

ITA 2179/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Bleshri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Hon’Bleshri S.S. Godara, Jm] A.Y 2012-13 Income Tax Officer Vs. Anamika Dealcom Pvt.Ltd Ward 10(1), Ad-76, Salt Lake City, Sector P-7, Chowringhee Square, 3Rd Kolkata-64 Floor, Kolkata-69 Pan No. Aaica 4631 Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" /Respondent) C.O No. 34/Kol/2019 [A/O Ita No. 2179/Kol/2016] Anamika Dealcom Pvt.Ltd Vs. Income Tax Officer Ad-76, Salt Lake City Ward-10(1), P-7, Chowringhee Square Sector, Kolkatka-64 Kolkata-69 ("तया"ेपक/Cross-Objector) (""यथ" /Respondent) आवेदक क" ओर से/By Assessee : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate, राज"व क" ओर से/By Respondent : Smt.Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 120Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ch plea in view of sec. 120,124 and 127 of the Act& case law hon’ble Delhi high court in Writ Petition No. 11844/2016 Abhishek Jain vs. Income Tax Officer dated 01-06-2018, (2014) 46 taxman.com 169 (Del) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. S.S. Ahluwalia &, (1972) 84 ITR 26 (Cal), Smt Sumitra Devi Khirwal vs. Commissioner of Income Tax. 5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the above question of Assessing Officer’s jurisdiction going to root of the matter. We would like to reiterate here that Revenue itself is fair enough in admitting the clinching fact that ITO, Ward 24(3), Kolkata only had issued 143(2) n…

SHRI HARI RAM YADAV,ALWAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALWAR

ITA 215/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Ranka (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 263Section 54B

…he show-cause notice has been signed by the ITO(Technical) has no impact on the question of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. 10. The ld CIT-DR further placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Smt. Sumitra Devi Khirwal vs. CIT 84 ITR 26 for the proposition that even where the records are placed before the CIT by his subordinates who pointed out the error and the prejudice, the CIT is not barred from exercising his powers of revision u/s 263 of the Act. 11. It was further submitted by the ld CIT-DR that during the course of proceedings U/s 263 of the Act, the assessee has never ch…

AAKRITI LANDCON P. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 433/JPR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: The Merit Of The Matter Which Has Been Put Up For Our Consideration.

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sayyat Nasir Ali (CIT)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…really falls under 263 of the Act. 6.3 In this regard, useful reference can be drawn to the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Smt. Sumitra Devi Khirwal vs M/s Aakriti Landcon P. Ltd Kota vs. Pr. CIT, Kota .Commissioner of Income-tax [1972] 84 ITR 26 (Cal)wherein it was held as under: “The next contention of Mr. Saraf is that under section 33B it is the duty of the Commissioner to call for and examine the record of any proceeding and if he considers upon such examination that the Income-tax Officer's order is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue he may exerc…