SHANTI RICE MILLS,KARNAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KARNAL
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment based on the same material already considered during the original assessment constitutes a mere change of opinion. Therefore, the notice issued under Section 148 and the consequent reassessment proceedings under Section 147 were quashed.
What were the facts?
The assessee's assessment was completed under Section 143(3). Later, the Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment under Section 147, alleging undervaluation of closing stock based on existing records. The AO had previously attempted rectification under Section 154/155 on the same issue, which was not pursued.
What were the issues?
Whether reopening of assessment under Section 147 is valid when based solely on a change of opinion and existing material, without any fresh information.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 147,Section 148,Section 143(3),Section 154,Section 155
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI
PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM: This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [Ld. CIT(A)] dated 10.11.2025 u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” in short) arising out of the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 29.11.2016 for Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of rice shelling (paddy milling) for last 30 years. The return of income was filed on 19.07.2014 declaring total income of Rs.1,01,620/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and assessment order passed u/s 143(3) dated 29.11.2016 wherein disallowance of Rs.1,07,620/- wa
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 →- Manoj Kumar Das vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Superwealth Financial Enterprises Private Limited, Khordha vs. Joint Commissioner Good And Service Tax Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Simanchal Sahoo vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Prafulla Chandra Khatua, Mayurbhanj vs. The State Tax Officer Of CT And GST, MayurbhanjOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sidhivinayak Roadways, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise, Rourkela Commissionerate, RourkelaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026