DEEPAK JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(1), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 was invalid because the reasons recorded for reopening did not establish a nexus with the transaction ultimately assessed. The AO's belief of escapement was based on specific penny stocks, but the assessment proceeded on a different set of shares, and the assessee's objections were not properly addressed.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened assessment for AY 2012-13 based on information about penny stock transactions. The assessee claimed to have traded in different shares (Sarathi Dealers Pvt. Ltd./Twenty First Century India Ltd.) which were later treated as unexplained money.
What were the issues?
Whether the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was valid given the discrepancy between the reasons recorded and the actual transaction assessed. Whether the assessee's objections to the reopening were properly disposed of.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 147,Section 148,Section 69A,Section 143(1),Section 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BENCH, ‘SMC’ CHANDIGARH
Before: SHRI LALIET KUMAR
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 14.05.2024 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short, 'the CIT(A)'], under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act'), pertaining to Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. At the outset, the ld. AR submitted that the appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 421 days for which affidavit explaining the delay has been placed on record. It was submitted that the delay was A.Y.2012-13 2 neither intentional nor deliberate and occurred due to un
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Chandan Kumar Bathual vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Cuttack-Iii Range, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Manoranjan Sadangi vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Gopalpur Range, GanjamOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Bijaya Kumar Parekh vs. State Tax Officer, CT And GST Balangir Circle, BalangirOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Puspanjali Bhuyan vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S A2Z Infra Engineering LTD vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
