CLE PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -3(4), MUMBAI

ITA 6270/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 February 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH (Accountant Member), SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice for reopening of assessment under Section 148 was invalid because proper approval from the specified authority under Section 151 was not obtained. The approval was granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, whereas for notices issued beyond three years from the end of the assessment year, approval from a higher authority like the Principal Chief Commissioner or Director General was required.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment for AY 2017-18, alleging unexplained cash credits of Rs. 39,75,00,000. The assessee argued that the reopening was bad in law and violated principles of natural justice as evidence from the investigation wing was not provided, and cross-examination was denied. The assessee also contested additions made under Section 68 and the computation of book profits under Section 115JB.

What were the issues?

Whether the reopening of assessment under Section 147/148 was valid due to improper approval under Section 151, and whether additions under Section 68 and computation of book profits under Section 115JB were correctly made.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 151,Section 68,Section 115JB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(7)Show 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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth a/w Jitendra Sanghvi
For Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT/DR &, Shri Mahesh Pamnani, Sr. DR
Hearing: 20.01.2025Pronounced: 17.02.2025

PER AMARJIT SINGH, AM: Both these appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the different order of the First Appellate Authority pertaining to A.Y. 2015-16 & A.Y. 2017-18 respectively. These appeals are adjudicated together as follows: “A RE-OPENING OF ASSESSMENT IS BAD IN LAW

1.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 51, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)) erred in confirming the action of the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(4), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as Assessing Officer) in re- opening the assessment u/s.147 o

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.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

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

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →