Sunil Kumar Rastogi v. CIT

406 ITR 306High Court2018#7618 most cited
15

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68Section 250Section 151Section 234BSection 69C

Issues it is cited on

income-tax officersection 68section 147section 250section 14section 143(3)nfac

Judgments citing Sunil Kumar Rastogi v. CIT

MSG ALL TRADING INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,EAST AZAD NAGAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-11(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3195/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms.Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Msg All Trading International Vs Dcit, Pvt.Ltd., Office No.2, 3Rd Floor, Circle-11(1), 80, East Azad Nagar, Delhi Raghuvarpura, Shahdara, Delhi-110051. Pan-Aajcm6792K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ved Jain, Adv., Shri Aman Garg, Ca & Ms. Ishika Dua, Ca Respondent By Shri Virender Kumar Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2025 Order

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

…verified in the course of normal assessment at any point. 3. The Revenue is indeed fair enough in not rebutting this clinching factual position emanating from the case files. 4. Faced with this situation, I hereby quote PCIT v. Manzil Dinesh Kumar Shah (2018) 406 ITR 306 (Guj.) and PCIT v. Maheshwari Devi (2023) 454 ITR 755 (Jharkhand) to conclude that such a recourse to 148/147 proceedings for the purpose of verification only is not sustainable in law. The impugned reopening stand quashed in very terms." 9. Further, the above-mentioned contention of assessee is supported by the following judicial pronouncements-…

JHM DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 13(3), DELHI

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 1470/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara[Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 148Section 250Section 69C

…he had set into motion section 148/147 in order to verify the corresponding transactions of Rs. 57.70 lakhs. This clinching fact has gone unrebutted from the Revenue’s side. 3. Faced with this situation, I hereby quote PCIT v. Manzil Dinesh Kumar Shah (2018) 406 ITR 306 (Guj.) and PCIT v. Maheshwari Devi (2023) 454 ITR 755 (Jharkhand) to conclude that such a recourse to 148/147 proceedings for the purpose of verification only is not sustainable in law. The impugned reopening stands quashed in very terms. All other pleadings on merits stand rendered academic. 4. This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms.…

PURE DEPARTMENTAL STORE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-11(1), NEW DELHI

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 2234/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

…ied in the course of normal assessment at any point. 3. The Revenue is indeed fair enough in not rebutting this clinching factual position emanating from the case files. 4. Faced with this situation, I hereby quote PCIT v. Manzil Dinesh Kumar Shah (2018) 406 ITR 306 (Guj.) and PCIT v. Maheshwari Devi (2023) 454 ITR 755 (Jharkhand) to conclude that such a recourse to 148/147 proceedings for the purpose of verification only is not sustainable in law. The impugned reopening stand quashed in very terms. All other pleadings on merits stand rendered academic. 5. This assessee’s appeals are allowed in above term…

PURE DEPARTMENTAL STORE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-11(1), NEW DELHI

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 2232/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

…ied in the course of normal assessment at any point. 3. The Revenue is indeed fair enough in not rebutting this clinching factual position emanating from the case files. 4. Faced with this situation, I hereby quote PCIT v. Manzil Dinesh Kumar Shah (2018) 406 ITR 306 (Guj.) and PCIT v. Maheshwari Devi (2023) 454 ITR 755 (Jharkhand) to conclude that such a recourse to 148/147 proceedings for the purpose of verification only is not sustainable in law. The impugned reopening stand quashed in very terms. All other pleadings on merits stand rendered academic. 5. This assessee’s appeals are allowed in above term…

PURE DEPARTMENTAL STORE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-11(1), NEW DELHI

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 2231/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

…ied in the course of normal assessment at any point. 3. The Revenue is indeed fair enough in not rebutting this clinching factual position emanating from the case files. 4. Faced with this situation, I hereby quote PCIT v. Manzil Dinesh Kumar Shah (2018) 406 ITR 306 (Guj.) and PCIT v. Maheshwari Devi (2023) 454 ITR 755 (Jharkhand) to conclude that such a recourse to 148/147 proceedings for the purpose of verification only is not sustainable in law. The impugned reopening stand quashed in very terms. All other pleadings on merits stand rendered academic. 5. This assessee’s appeals are allowed in above term…

PURE DEPARTMENTAL STORE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-11(1), NEW DELHI

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 2230/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

…ied in the course of normal assessment at any point. 3. The Revenue is indeed fair enough in not rebutting this clinching factual position emanating from the case files. 4. Faced with this situation, I hereby quote PCIT v. Manzil Dinesh Kumar Shah (2018) 406 ITR 306 (Guj.) and PCIT v. Maheshwari Devi (2023) 454 ITR 755 (Jharkhand) to conclude that such a recourse to 148/147 proceedings for the purpose of verification only is not sustainable in law. The impugned reopening stand quashed in very terms. All other pleadings on merits stand rendered academic. 5. This assessee’s appeals are allowed in above term…

ROOP KUMAR CHOPRA,JAIPUR vs. PCIT JAIPUR 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 264/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Him By The Assessee In Compliance To The Notice Notices Issued To Him U/S 142(1) As Well As U/S 143(2) Of The Act By The Ao As Erroneous In So Far As It Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue For The Purpose Of Section 263 Of The Act & Consequently Setting Aside The Assessment Order Passed Dated 01-01-2021 To Be Made Afresh Made Is Most Arbitrarily, Unjust, Untenable & Liable To Be Vacated.’’

For Appellant: Shri Dheeraj Borad, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 142(2)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

…o the issue before passing the assessment order, it cannot be said that the assessment order is erroneous merely because reference to the said inquiry was not made in the assessment order. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Sunil Kumar Rastogi v/s CIT 406 ITR 306. In this case honorable court held that assessment order, in any case, cannot be revised on the ground 7 ROOP KUMAR CHOPRA VS PR. CIT-1, JAIPUR that the deeper inquiry ought to have been made or proper exercise was not done while making the assessment. 8. That without prejudice to submissions made above in para no. 1 to 7 of this very reply let…

TIMECITY REAL ESTATES(INDIA) LIMTED,LUCKNOW vs. PCIT-1, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 67/LKW/2021[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Aug 2022AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2015-2016

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

…T are not valid as the order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Reliance in this respect was placed on the following case laws: (1) Judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Rastogi vs. CIT and Another, 406 ITR 306 (All) (2) Judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Krishna Capbox (P.) Ltd. [2015] 372 ITR 310 (All) (3) I.T.A.T. Delhi Bench order in the case of MAXPAK Investment Limited vs. ACIT 104 TTJ 881 (Del) 4. We have heard the rival parties and have gone through the material placed on record. The assessee is engaged in the busin…

ASHOKBHAI NARSHIBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 62/SRT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Jan 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.58 & 59/Srt/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2016-17& 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Hilton Group, Vs. The Pcit (Central), Fp 56-57, Tp 37, Block No. Surat. 1168/B, Variyav Adajan, Surat- 394 530, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaifh9885N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah & P. M. Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 263

…issioner-CIT v. Gokuldas Exports (2011) 33 ITR 214 (Kar.). Assessment Order, in any case, cannot be revised on the ground that the deeper enquiry ought to have been made or proper exercise was not done while making the assessment [Sunil Kumar Rastogi vs. CIT, 406 ITR 306].An order cannot be said to be erroneous only because A.O. has written a brief order without details - CIT v. Goyal171 ITR 698, CIT v. Gabriel India 203 ITR 108. It would be evident from the above given facts that the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 by the Ld. Pr. C.I.T. and consequential direction to the A.O. to impose his own understanding o…

ASHOKBHAI NARSHIBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 61/SRT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.58 & 59/Srt/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2016-17& 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Hilton Group, Vs. The Pcit (Central), Fp 56-57, Tp 37, Block No. Surat. 1168/B, Variyav Adajan, Surat- 394 530, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaifh9885N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah & P. M. Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 263

…issioner-CIT v. Gokuldas Exports (2011) 33 ITR 214 (Kar.). Assessment Order, in any case, cannot be revised on the ground that the deeper enquiry ought to have been made or proper exercise was not done while making the assessment [Sunil Kumar Rastogi vs. CIT, 406 ITR 306].An order cannot be said to be erroneous only because A.O. has written a brief order without details - CIT v. Goyal171 ITR 698, CIT v. Gabriel India 203 ITR 108. It would be evident from the above given facts that the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 by the Ld. Pr. C.I.T. and consequential direction to the A.O. to impose his own understanding o…

ASHOKBHAI NARSHIBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 60/SRT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.58 & 59/Srt/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2016-17& 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Hilton Group, Vs. The Pcit (Central), Fp 56-57, Tp 37, Block No. Surat. 1168/B, Variyav Adajan, Surat- 394 530, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaifh9885N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah & P. M. Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 263

…issioner-CIT v. Gokuldas Exports (2011) 33 ITR 214 (Kar.). Assessment Order, in any case, cannot be revised on the ground that the deeper enquiry ought to have been made or proper exercise was not done while making the assessment [Sunil Kumar Rastogi vs. CIT, 406 ITR 306].An order cannot be said to be erroneous only because A.O. has written a brief order without details - CIT v. Goyal171 ITR 698, CIT v. Gabriel India 203 ITR 108. It would be evident from the above given facts that the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 by the Ld. Pr. C.I.T. and consequential direction to the A.O. to impose his own understanding o…

HILTON GROUP,SURAT vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 59/SRT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Jan 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.58 & 59/Srt/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2016-17& 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Hilton Group, Vs. The Pcit (Central), Fp 56-57, Tp 37, Block No. Surat. 1168/B, Variyav Adajan, Surat- 394 530, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaifh9885N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah & P. M. Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 263

…issioner-CIT v. Gokuldas Exports (2011) 33 ITR 214 (Kar.). Assessment Order, in any case, cannot be revised on the ground that the deeper enquiry ought to have been made or proper exercise was not done while making the assessment [Sunil Kumar Rastogi vs. CIT, 406 ITR 306].An order cannot be said to be erroneous only because A.O. has written a brief order without details - CIT v. Goyal171 ITR 698, CIT v. Gabriel India 203 ITR 108. It would be evident from the above given facts that the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 by the Ld. Pr. C.I.T. and consequential direction to the A.O. to impose his own understanding o…

HILTON GROUP,SURAT vs. PCIT, (CENTRAL), SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 58/SRT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.58 & 59/Srt/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2016-17& 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Hilton Group, Vs. The Pcit (Central), Fp 56-57, Tp 37, Block No. Surat. 1168/B, Variyav Adajan, Surat- 394 530, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaifh9885N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah & P. M. Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 263

…issioner-CIT v. Gokuldas Exports (2011) 33 ITR 214 (Kar.). Assessment Order, in any case, cannot be revised on the ground that the deeper enquiry ought to have been made or proper exercise was not done while making the assessment [Sunil Kumar Rastogi vs. CIT, 406 ITR 306].An order cannot be said to be erroneous only because A.O. has written a brief order without details - CIT v. Goyal171 ITR 698, CIT v. Gabriel India 203 ITR 108. It would be evident from the above given facts that the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 by the Ld. Pr. C.I.T. and consequential direction to the A.O. to impose his own understanding o…

RAMESH KUMAR GORDHAN KATHIRIYA,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 192/SRT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Jan 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.58 & 59/Srt/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2016-17& 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Hilton Group, Vs. The Pcit (Central), Fp 56-57, Tp 37, Block No. Surat. 1168/B, Variyav Adajan, Surat- 394 530, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaifh9885N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah & P. M. Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 263

…issioner-CIT v. Gokuldas Exports (2011) 33 ITR 214 (Kar.). Assessment Order, in any case, cannot be revised on the ground that the deeper enquiry ought to have been made or proper exercise was not done while making the assessment [Sunil Kumar Rastogi vs. CIT, 406 ITR 306].An order cannot be said to be erroneous only because A.O. has written a brief order without details - CIT v. Goyal171 ITR 698, CIT v. Gabriel India 203 ITR 108. It would be evident from the above given facts that the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 by the Ld. Pr. C.I.T. and consequential direction to the A.O. to impose his own understanding o…

RAMESH KUMAR GORDHAN KATHIRIYA,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 191/SRT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.58 & 59/Srt/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2016-17& 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Hilton Group, Vs. The Pcit (Central), Fp 56-57, Tp 37, Block No. Surat. 1168/B, Variyav Adajan, Surat- 394 530, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaifh9885N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah & P. M. Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 263

…issioner-CIT v. Gokuldas Exports (2011) 33 ITR 214 (Kar.). Assessment Order, in any case, cannot be revised on the ground that the deeper enquiry ought to have been made or proper exercise was not done while making the assessment [Sunil Kumar Rastogi vs. CIT, 406 ITR 306].An order cannot be said to be erroneous only because A.O. has written a brief order without details - CIT v. Goyal171 ITR 698, CIT v. Gabriel India 203 ITR 108. It would be evident from the above given facts that the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 by the Ld. Pr. C.I.T. and consequential direction to the A.O. to impose his own understanding o…