KASHI NATH SETH SARRAF PRIVATE LIMITED,HARDOI vs. DCIT, SITAPUR, SITAPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings under Section 147 were not valid because they were initiated after the expiry of four years and there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. The addition was deemed to be based on a 'change of opinion'.
What were the facts?
The assessee received share application money of Rs. 50,00,000/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment under Section 147 and made an addition of this amount. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dismissed the assessee's appeal against this addition.
What were the issues?
Validity of reassessment under Section 147 after four years, particularly when the issue was already examined in the original assessment under Section 143(3), and whether it amounts to a 'change of opinion'.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(3)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.
- CIT v. Foramer France253 citing264 ITR 566 · 2003 · SC
- German Remedies Ltd. v. Dy. CIT89 citing287 ITR 494 · 2006 · HC
- Nirmal Bang Nirmal Bang Securities (P) Ltd. v. ACIT25 citing382 ITR 93 · 2016 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH “B”, LUCKNOW
Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA
PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, A.M.: (A). This appeal vide I.T.A. No.86/LKW/2024 has been filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 against impugned appellate order dated 20.12.2023 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1058934744(1) of Ld.
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)”, for short]. (B) In this case, assessment order dated 28.12.2019 was passed u/s 147 read with section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short) whereby the assessee's total income was determined at Rs.78,18,230/- as against income assessed at Rs.28,18,230/- vide earlier assessment order dated 18.02.2015 passed u/s 143(3) of I.T. Act. In the aforesaid assessment or
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 →- Md. Akhtar Ansari, Proprietor Of M/S Indian Associates vs. State Of Jharkhand, Through Commissioner Of State Tax, Commercial Tax Dept.Jharkhand · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Amarjothi Granites (INDIA) PVT. LTD., Berhampur, Ganjam vs. The Commissioner, Commercial Tax And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Mishka Steels LLP And Anr. vs. The Superintendent Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Cx, Range-Ii, Behala Div. And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Limited vs. Union Of INDIAGujarat · 14 Oct 2026
- Ramesh K Devadiga vs. Khernagar Nandadeep Co Operative Housing Society LTDBombay · 14 Oct 2026