B.P.Jeevan Reddy, C.J. - (1.) Heard counsel for the respondent- assessee.
(2.) Common questions are sought to be raised in these three applications under Section 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 : - 1. Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Delhi). 2. Kanhaiyalal v. CIT [1982] 136 ITR 243 (Raj).
(3.) Thalibai F. Jain v. ITO [ 1975] 101 ITR 1 (Kar). (2) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in not upholding the order under Section 263 in view of the Supreme Court decisions in the cases of Rampyari Saraogi [1968] 67 ITR 84 and Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [ 1973 ] 88 ITR 323 ? (3) Whether the Tribunal is correct in law and on the facts in cancelling the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 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 ?" 3. Similar applications raising identical questions have been dismissed by us following a Bench decision of this court in CIT v. Goyal Pvt. Family Specific Trust [1988] 171 ITR 698. This fact is admitted by counsel for both the parties. Following the said order, these three applications are also dismissed. No costs.;