SMT NEENA CHANDOK,JABALPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, JABALPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as there was no fresh tangible material and the assessee had disclosed all material facts during the original assessment. The proviso to Section 147 of the Act was applicable.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed expenditure on Engine and Machine as revenue expenses. The Assessing Officer (AO) re-opened the assessment after more than four years, treating the expenditure as capital in nature. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's order.
What were the issues?
Whether the reopening of assessment beyond four years was valid in the absence of fresh tangible material and full disclosure by the assessee.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JABALPUR BENCH “SMC”, JABALPUR
Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT
PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.:
This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-3, Raipur dated 14.02.2025 pertaining to the assessment year 2012-13. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: -
“1. The order passed by the Ld CIT (A) supporting the order of Ld AO is bad in law and facts, void ab initio and with juri iction.
That the Ld CIT (A) erred in law and facts of the case by sustaining the addition of Rs. 5,41,620 as capital expenditure despite of providing evidences such as purchases bills, vouchers etc.
The Ld CIT (A) erred in law and facts of the case by sustaining the addition of Rs. 1,17,360 of prior period expense.
The appellant
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 →- Jharkhand Contractors Association Thro Its President- Pramod Kumar vs. Bharat Coking Coal LTD. Thro Its Chairman Cum Managing DirectorJharkhand · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Isc Processors Private Limited vs. Superintendent,Range-Iv, Burrabazar Div, CGST And Cx, Kolkata (N) Commissionerate And AnrCalcutta · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Raashi Constructions vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial TaxesKarnataka · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Bidasaria Fenster Solutions vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 13 Oct 2026
- Amit Agency vs. Commissioner, CGST And CxPatna · 13 Oct 2026