ARUNA,AMBALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, AMBALA , AMBALA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1707/CHANDI/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 May 2026AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found substance in the assessee's argument that a co-owner's explanation for half the investment was accepted. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for a fresh assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee's case was reopened based on information of a Rs. 70 Lacs investment in immovable property. The notice for reopening was not complied with, leading the AO to treat the Rs. 70 Lacs as income from undisclosed sources.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee's explanation for the investment in property was adequately considered, and if the AO's best judgment assessment was justified without providing an opportunity to prove the sources.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, CHANDIGARH

Before: HON’BLE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत /Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु�/CIT 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड�फाईल/GF

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

ITAT CHANDIGARH

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →