Commissioner of Income Tax vs Kiran Family Trust

B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.—Heard counsel for the respondent- assessee.

Common questions are sought to be raised in these three applications u/s 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. They are :

"(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, failure on the part of the Income Tax Officer to make proper and adequate enquiries is by itself not sufficient to meet the requirement of Section 263 which confers jurisdiction in respect of an order which is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue in view of the following decisions : --

Gee Vee Enterprise Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, .

Kanhaiyalal Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, .

Thalibai F. Jain and Others Vs. Income Tax Officer, Assessment-4, Hubli and Another, .

(2) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in not upholding the order u/s 263 in view of the Supreme Court decisions in the cases of Rampyari Devi Saraogi Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal and Others, and Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal, Calcutta,

(3) Whether the Tribunal is correct in law and on the facts in cancelling the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax u/s 263 where the Commissioner of Income Tax had considered the order of the Assessing Officer as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue on the facts and the circumstances of the case ?"

Similar applications raising identical questions have been dismissed by us following a Bench decision of this court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Goyal Private Family Specific Trust, . This fact is admitted by counsel for both the parties. Following the said order, these three applications are also dismissed. No costs.