ACIT, JAMMU vs. DR KARAN SINGH, JAMMU
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were unsustainable in law. The additions made were not the grounds for reopening, and the basis for reopening in other cases was also invalid. Therefore, the reopening of assessment was quashed.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed a return which was declared invalid due to defects. Subsequently, a notice under Section 148 was issued for alleged escapement of income. The Assessing Officer made additions on account of capital gains on shares and agricultural income. The assessee challenged the validity of reassessment proceedings.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the validity of the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer. Another issue was whether the additions made by the AO were sustainable when they were not the basis for reopening.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(30)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd.1,030 citing291 ITR 500 · 2007 · SC · Read judgment
- Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar695 citing268 ITR 332 · 2004 · HC
- CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd.694 citing331 ITR 236 · 2011 · HC
- Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT398 citing336 ITR 136 · 2011 · HC
- CIT v. Orient Craft Ltd.366 citing354 ITR 536 · 2013 · HC
- 394 ITR 146 (Guj.) 2. Varshaben S. Patel v. ITO295 citing338 ITR 51 · 2011 · HC
- National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT241 citing389 ITR 326 · 2016 · HC
- CIT v. Atlas Cycle Industries212 citing180 ITR 319 · 1989 · HC
- CIT v. Shri Ram Singh180 citing174 Taxmann 438 · 2008 · HC
- Prashant S. Joshi v. ITO179 citing324 ITR 154 · 2010 · HC
- 6 CIT in v. Mohmed Juned Dadani156 citing355 ITR 172 · 2013 · HC
- Hukumchand Mills Ltd. v. CIT142 citing63 ITR 232 · 1967 · SC · Read judgment
- Goodyear v. State of Haryana94 citing188 ITR 402 · 1991 · SC
- A. R. Krishnamurthy v. CIT85 citing176 ITR 417 · 1989 · SC · Read judgment
- CIT v. Varas International79 citing284 ITR 80 · SC
- KLM Royal Dutch Airlines v. Additional Director of Income Tax78 citing292 ITR 49 · 2007 · HC · Read judgment
- ACIT v. ICICI Securities Primary Dealership Ltd.76 citing348 ITR 299 · 2012 · SC
- Assam Company (I) Ltd. v. CIT63 citing256 ITR 423 · 2002 · HC
- CIT v. Software Consultants59 citing341 ITR 240 · 2012 · HC · Read judgment
- Ashwin Vanaspati Industries v. CIT57 citing125 Taxmann 59 · 2002 · Read judgment
- Mcorp Global P. Ltd. v. CIT56 citing309 ITR 434 · 2009 · SC · Read judgment
- ITO v. Smt. Gurinder Kaur54 citing102 ITD 189 · 2006 · ITAT
- State of Orissa v. Sudhanshu Sekhar Misra47 citing2 SCR 154 · 1968 · SC
- CIT v. Batra Bhatta Company38 citing321 ITR 526 · 2010 · HC
- Mag) (Bom) & Rahul Prakash V. ITO (2013) 217 Taxman 100 (All) (vii) CIT v. Mohmed Juned Dadani33 citing359 ITR 106 · 2013 · HC
- Calcutta in Indian Steel and Wire Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income31 citing208 ITR 740 · 1994 · HC
- Marolia & Sons. v. CIT26 citing129 ITR 475 · 1981 · HC
- N.D. Bhatt, IAC v. I.B.M. World Trade Corpn26 citing216 ITR 811 · 1995 · HC
- Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT25 citing207 ITR 1 · 1994 · SC
- Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Addl. CIT24 citing272 CTR 56 · 2014 · HC
Heard together (4 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “D” : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.263/ASR/2003 Assessment Year 1998-99 ACIT, Shri M.K. Ajat Shatru, Circle-II, vs The Palace, Jammu Jammu. Assessment Year 1998-99 ACIT, Dr. Karan Singh, Circle-II, vs. The Palace, Jammu Jammu.
CO NO.43/ASR/2007 Arising out of ITA No.267/ASR/2007 - Assessment Year 1998-99 Dr. Karan Singh, ACIT, The Palace, vs. Circle-II, Jammu Jammu Assessment Year 1998-99 ACIT, Yashorajya Lakshmi Circle-II, ITA.Nos.263/Asr/2003, 267 to 269/Asr/2007 & C.O.Nos.43 to 45/Asr/2007 Shri M.K. Ajatshatru, Jammu & Others, CO NO.44/ASR/2007 Arising out of ITA No.268/ASR/2007 - Assessment Year 1998-99 Yashorajya Lakshmi ACIT, Dr. Karan Singh, Legal Heir vs. Circle-II, of Smt. Yashorajya Lakshmi, Jammu The Palace, Jammu. Assessment Year 1998-99 ACIT, Shri Vikramaditya Singh, Circle-II, vs. The Palace, Jammu Jammu
CO NO.45/ASR/2007 Arising out of ITA No.269/ASR/2007 - Assessment Year 1998-99 Shri Vikramaditya Singh, ACIT, The Palace, vs. Circle-II, Jammu Jammu (
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.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- ACIT, Jammu vs Sh M.K. Ajat Shatru, JammuDelhi24 Jan 2022Allowed
Also relies on Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT, 313 ITR (AT) 263 (SB) and 4 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were unsustainable in law. The additions made were not the grounds for reopening, and the basis for reopening in other cases was also invalid. Therefore, the reopening ...
- Sunil Vishram Chawda, Hyd, Hyderabad vs DCIT, Circle-14(1), Hyd, HyderabadHyderabad25 May 2018Allowed
Also relies on Jagatram Ahuja v. CGT
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment for earlier years was based on a mere change of opinion and presumption, without any new material. Therefore, the reopening was bad in law.
- Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Surat, Gujrat vs A.C.I.T., Circle - 5(1), KolkataKolkata26 Aug 2024Allowed
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment proceedings was invalid as it was based on borrowed satisfaction and a mere change of opinion, without any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts...
- Standard Tele Towers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs DCIT, Circle-24(2), New DelhiDelhi19 Jul 2023Allowed
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in invoking reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148. It also found that the addition was not sustainable as the assessee claimed the amount was part of work in progress and not ...
- Witmer Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs ITO, Corporate Ward-3(3), ChennaiChennai13 Mar 2026Allowed
Also relies on Iqbal Singh Atwal v. CIT
The Tribunal held that a fresh return is not required if the assessee informs the AO to treat the earlier return as filed in response to the Section 148 notice. The Tribunal found that no notice under Section 143(2) was ...
More judgments on Section 139(9)
- P D Memorial Religious and Educational… vs DCIT (Exemption) Circle-2, ChandigarhITA 932/CHANDI/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2021-22
- P D Memorial Religious and Educational… vs DCIT (Exemption) Circle-2, ChandigarhITA 932/CHANDI/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2021-22
- Pintu Babulal Purohit, Bangalore vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(2)(2), BangaloreITA 136/BANG/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed8 Sept 2026AY 2017-18
- Ravi Rajgarhia, Kolkata vs I.T.O., Ward - 33(1), KolkataITA 1284/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed3 Sept 2026AY 2013-2014
- Harvinder Singh, Karnal vs ITO Ward 1 Karnal, KarnalITA 3219/DEL/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed13 Aug 2026AY 2017-18
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
