AMBEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,BATHINDA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA

ITA 121/ASR/2017Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 February 2019AY 2011-1215 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the AO's reasons for reopening the assessment were not cogent and lacked proper material. The receipt of Rs. 15 crores was already disclosed and subjected to assessment, and there was no valid reason to believe income had escaped assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee's assessment was reopened under Section 147. The Assessing Officer (AO) believed income had escaped assessment based on information about a Rs. 15 crore receipt from PACL for land development. The assessee argued that the notice for reopening was invalid as the firm was dissolved prior to the notice.

What were the issues?

Whether the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was valid when the reasons recorded by the AO were not cogent and lacked material evidence. Whether the notice under Section 148 was validly served on a dissolved firm.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 282,Section 145(3),Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(20)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, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR

Before: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhry

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta
Hearing: 19.02.2019Pronounced: 21.02.2019

Per N. S. Saini, AM:

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A), Bathinda dated 30.01.2017. 2. The assessee has taken following grounds of appeal:

“1. The Ld. CIT(A), Bathinda erred on facts and law in confirming the action of the AO of assessing the income vide order u/s 143(3) of IT Act, 1961 dated 14-03-2016 at Rs.16,73,54,700/- as against the income declared in the return at Rs.1,66,42,143/-.

2.

The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and law in confirming the validity of proceedings initiated u/s 147/148 by the Ld. AO despite the established fact that notice u/s 148 of the Act was not served in accordance with the provisions of section 282 of the IT Act, 1

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 →