Income-Tax Officer vs Goyal Trading Co. on 20 December, 1994
2. Kapurchand Shrimal v. CIT [1981] 131 ITR 451 (SC) ;
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 269 (1.82 seconds)Dy. Cit vs Rohtas Projects Limited on 9 August, 2005
He also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kapurchand Shrimal v. C.I.T. (1981) 131 I.T.R. 451, where the Supreme Court has held that the jurisdiction of an appellate authority extends to correct all errors in the proceedings under appeal and to issue, if necessary, appropriate directions to the authority against whose decision the appeal is preferred. In my opinion, the ld. Accountant Member has failed to grasp the real purpose of the Tribunal. The Tribunal acting as an appellate authority has to see whether the assessment framed by the A.O. and whether the appellate order appealed against were according to law and properly framed on facts and whether there was sufficient material to support it. When there is no material to support it and when as observed by the ld. Accountant Member and additions made by the A.O. could not be sustained, it is not for the Tribunal to start investigations suo motu and supply the evidence for the Department. If the additions are not supported by the evidence, the only course open to the Tribunal is to delete the additions pointing out how the additions made could not be sustained for want of adequate supporting material. It is for the Department to gather the material and make proper assessments and the Tribunal is not in that fashion an income-tax authority. Under the income-tax authorities stipulated under the Income-tax Act, the income-tax Appellate Tribunal is not one of them. It is purely an appellate authority. Therefore, the subject of the appeal before the Tribunal is whether the addition or disallowance sustained was in accordance with law and supported by material. If there is no sufficient material, the addition must be deleted. The Tribunal cannot order further enquiry with a view to sustain the addition. This will amount to taking sides with the parties which is not the function of a judicial authority like the Tribunal.
Shri Shahid Atiq L/H Of Late Sh. Atiquer ... vs Income-Tax Officer on 30 June, 2005
(12) There is legal obligation on the part of ITAT to rectify errors committed by the authorities below even if neither party objects to such mistake Such obligation can be discharged by exercising jurisdiction suo motu also. [ Kapurchand Shrimal v. CIT 131 ITR 451 (SC)].
Shahid Atiq vs Ito, Ward 5(8) on 30 June, 2005
(12) There is legal obligation on the part of ITAT to rectify errors committed by the authorities below even if neither party objects to such mistake. Such obligation can be discharged by exercising jurisdiction suo motu alsoKapurchand Shrimal v. CIT (1981) 131 ITR 451 (SC).
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Nitu Trading Co. Ltd. on 12 September, 1997
In the case of Kapurchand Shrimal vs. CIT (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has pronounced as under :
Berger Paints India Ltd. vs Collector Of Customs on 12 August, 1993
In the present case, as aforesaid, we are concerned with the interpretation of the expression "to amend any order passed by it under sub-section(1)" with a view to rectifying any mistake, and therefore, we are not required to dwell ourselves on the cases cited at the Bar which deal with the meaning and scope of expression "mistake apparent from the record" and for that purpose what constitutes "record", (see Maharana Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO; ITO v. Ashok Textiles Ltd.; Kil Kotagiri Tea & Coffee Estate Co. v. ITAT; Anchor Pressing Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT; CIT v. Shakuntala Rajeswar; CIT v. ITAT and Anr.; Neeta S. Shah v. CIT; Lakshmi Electric Corpn. v. CIT; Kapurchand Shrimal v. CIT; CIT v. ITAT and Ors.; CIT v. ITAT supra) or what is the starting point of limitation for computing period of limitation of "four years" for the purpose of rectification (see Bihar State Road Transport Corpn. v. CIT & Kutti-krishnan Nair v. ITAT supra) or "amend" (see CIT v. Mita Lal Ashok Kumar; CIT v. ITAT, & CIT v. ITAT supra) or brought to its notice by either party or suo motu power of the Tribunal to correct any error or its inherent powers (see Shiv Deo Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab; Mrs. KTMS Uma Salma v. CIT; Kuttikrishnan Nair v. ITAT; Sitaramappa Ananthappa Manvi v. CIT; ITO v. Singer Singh & Sons; & ITO v. ITAT supra) or power of the Tribunal to set aside its Final Order passed on appeal ex-parte (see CIT v. ITAT supra) or opportunity to be heard to be accorded to both sides while dealing with an application for rectification (see case of Smart Pvt. Ltd. v. ITAT supra) or with the cases dealing with the theory of Merger (see case of Vedantham Raghaviah v. Third Addl.
Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Rohtas Projects Ltd. on 6 July, 2005
He also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kapurchand Shrimal v. CIT , where the Supreme Court has held that the jurisdiction of an appellate authority extends to correct all errors in the proceedings under appeal and to issue, if necessary, appropriate directions to the authority against whose decision the appeal is preferred. In my opinion, the Id. Accountant Member has failed to grasp the real purpose of the Tribunal. The Tribunal acting as an appellate authority has to see whether the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer and whether the appellate order appealed against were according to law and properly framed on facts and whether there was sufficient material to support it. When there is no material to support it and when as observed by the Id. Accountant Member and additions made by the Assessing Officer could not be sustained, it is not for the Tribunal to start investigations suo motu and supply the evidence for the Department. If the additions are not supported by the evidence, the only course open to the Tribunal is to delete the additions pointing out how the additions made could not be sustained for want of adequate supporting material. It is for the Department to gather the material and make proper assessments and the Tribunal is not in that fashion an income-tax authority. Under the income-tax authorities stipulated under the Income-tax Act, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is not one of them. It is purely an appellate authority. Therefore, the subject of the appeal before the Tribunal is whether the addition or disallowance sustained was in accordance with law and supported by material. If there is no sufficient material, the addition must be deleted. The Tribunal cannot order further enquiry with a view to sustain the addition. This will amount to taking sides with the parties which is not the function of a judicial authority like the Tribunal.
Raj Kumar Jain vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 6 May, 1994
He also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kapurchand Shrimal v. CIT [1981] 131 ITR 451, where the Supreme Court has held that the jurisdiction of an appellate authority extends to correct all errors in the proceedings under appeal and to issue, if necessary, appropriate directions to the authority against whose decision the appeal is preferred. In my opinion, the learned Accountant Member has failed to grasp the real purpose of the Tribunal. The Tribunal acting as an appellate authority has to see whether the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer and whether the appellate order appealed against were according to law and properly framed on facts and whether there was sufficient material to support it. When there is no material to support it and when as observed by the learned Accountant Member the additions made by the Assessing Officer could not be sustained, it is not for the Tribunal to start investigations suo motu and supply the evidence for the Department. If the additions are not supported by evidence, the only course open to the Tribunal is to delete the additions pointing out how the additions made could not be sustained for want of adequate supporting material. It is for the Department to gather the material and make proper assessments and the Tribunal is not in that fashion an income-tax authority. Under the income-tax authorities stipulated under the Income-tax Act, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is not one of them. It is purely an appellate authority. Therefore, the subject of the appeal before the Tribunal is whether the addition or disallowance sustained was in accordance with law and supported by material. If there is no sufficient material, the addition must be deleted. The Tribunal cannot order further enquiry with a view to sustain the addition. This will amount to taking sides with the parties which is not the function of a judicial authority like the Tribunal. The observations of the Madras High Court are not to the effect that the Tribunal could take upon it investigations which the Departmental authorities have failed to carry out. Nor would the Supreme Court decision referred to above justify such a course because what the Supreme Court said was that if there are any errors in the proceedings, the appellate authority could correct it. There is no mistake or flaw in the proceedings or procedure adopted. Making further investigations is not a part of the procedure. That is substantive. Therefore, the observation made by the Supreme Court is in my opinion not properly appreciated for ordering further investigation into fresh facts. If these two decisions are properly understood in the proper perspective and the withdrawals made this year are perceived in the context of the incomes assessed and the withdrawals made in the earlier years, it could not be said that the withdrawals made in these two years were ridiculously low so as to warrant an estimate. The mere ipsi dixit of the Revenue about the personal expenditure is not enough to sustain an addition. There must be material to support the addition. Mere reference to the status is not enough to sustain an addition though it is sufficient to probe further, which the Departmental authorities have failed to do. Joint families may have income running into lakhs. But that is no consideration to say that the expenditure shown here by way of personal expenditure was low.
Maa Communication Bozell Ltd. vs Dy. Cit on 16 September, 2005
6.1 Kapurchand Shrimal v. CIT (1981) 131 ITR 451 (SC) In this case the assessing officer made an assessment in the case of HUF without holding an enquiry into the validity of the claim of Hindu family that a partition has taken place among the members of the family. The following was question of law which was referred to the Andhra Pradesh High Court "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessments made by the Income Tax Officer on the Hindu Undivided Family of Shri Kapoorchand Shrimal for the years under reference without passing order under section 25A was valid." The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed at page 461 that the question referred by the Tribunal to the High Court does not appear to be comprehensive enough to decide the matter satisfactorily. The question made has to be read as including further question regarding the nature of the orders to be passed by the Tribunal if the orders of assessments are held to be contrary to law. In the light of the above, the order of assessment made by assessing officer was set aside and the Tribunal was asked to direct the assessing officer to make fresh assessment in accordance with law. In the instant case, there is no occasion to decide that the assessment has been made contrary to the provisions of law but are concerned only with the appreciation of evidences. Hence this case law is not applicable.
Chambal Fertilisers And Chemicals ... vs Dcit, Kota on 13 May, 2022
28.5. Further, the Department Representative (`DR') vide its written submissions
has mentioned that the AO rejected the books of accounts due to reason (a) to (e)
mentioned in the assessment order and not because of the fall in GP rate. As
mentioned above, the assessee has submitted all the relevant details along with
reasons for difference in weight being a process loss which have been submitted
and hence, the weight of raw material in the books of accounts as per the purchase
invoice being less than the weight of the weighment slips has already been
explained by the assessee and this cannot be the basis to reject its books of
accounts. Further, the fact that the assessee has a company policy in place to
charge commission agents when difference is more than 50kgs itself shows that
there are differences in weight as cotton is a natural product which absorbs
moisture. Further, no addition can be made as pointed out by the DR, when the
books of accounts have always been accepted in earlier years and there is no
change in facts warranting taking a different position and, hence, the books of
accounts cannot be rejected and the CIT(A) has correctly decided the issue. Further,
the DR referred to the decision of Kapurchand Shrimal v. CIT (131 ITR 451)(SC)
52
ITA NO. 201(6)/JP/2017
M/s. Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd.