RONAK GEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that a notice under Section 148 cannot be issued before the expiry of the time limit for issuing a notice under Section 143(2). Reopening the assessment in such a scenario is invalid.
What were the facts?
The assessee's return for AY 2016-17 was filed on 17/10/2016. The AO issued a notice under Section 148 (reopening) on 27/02/2017, before the expiry of the time limit for issuing a notice under Section 143(2) (normal assessment).
What were the issues?
Whether the Assessing Officer has jurisdiction to reopen an assessment under Section 147/148 when the time limit for issuing a notice under Section 143(2) has not expired.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(6)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.
- National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT5,834 citing229 ITR 383 · 1998 · SC
- ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd.1,030 citing291 ITR 500 · 2007 · SC · Read judgment
- Asstt. CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd.167 citing161 Taxmann 316 · 2007 · SC
- CIT v. Qatalys Software Technologies Ltd.40 citing308 ITR 249 · 2009 · HC
- CIT v. TCP Ltd.16 citing323 ITR 346 · 2010 · HC
- Smt. Suman v. ITO4 citing84 Taxmann.com 267 · 2017 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D‘ BENCH
Before: SHRI M.BALAGANESH & SMT KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL
PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M):
This appeal in ITA No.4604/Mum/2018 for A.Y.2016-17 arises out of the order by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai in appeal No.CIT(A)-48/I.T.-102/DCCC-2(4)/2017-18 dated 27/06/2018 (ld. CIT(A) in short) against the order of assessment passed u/s.147 r.w.s. 143(3)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) dated 31/12/2017 by the ld. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(4), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as ld. AO).
2 M/s. Ronak Gems Pvt. Ltd.,
The assessee has filed additional ground as under:-
“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case,
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