SHRI SHAKTI G. KARNAWAT,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(1), SURAT
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was not sustainable because the AO did not make any addition on account of unexplained loans, which was the basis for reopening. The Tribunal also found a lack of live-link between the information available to the AO and the belief formed for reopening.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment based on information that the assessee received unsecured loans from certain parties. However, during the assessment, the AO treated these transactions as bogus purchases and made additions. The assessee argued that the reopening was invalid as the AO did not make additions on the grounds for which the assessment was reopened.
What were the issues?
Whether the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was valid when the addition was made on a different ground than the one stated in the reasons for reopening. Whether there was a live-link between the information received and the formation of belief by the AO.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(4)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. Jet Airways (I) Ltd.694 citing331 ITR 236 · 2011 · HC
- Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT398 citing336 ITR 136 · 2011 · HC
- 6 CIT in v. Mohmed Juned Dadani156 citing355 ITR 172 · 2013 · HC
- 1. Harikishan S. Virmani v. DCIT97 citing64 Taxmann.com 179 · 2017 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT– BENCH ‘SURAT’
Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH
PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Present cross appeals are directed against order of the ld.CIT(A)-3, Surat dated 20.3.2017 passed for the Asstt.Year 2007-08. 2. Assessee in its appeal has pleaded that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in upholding reopening of the assessment by issuance of notice under section 148 of the Income tax Act, 1961. ITA No.1504/Ahd/2017 and No.1381/Ahd/2017 2
As far as second fold of grievance is concerned, it is common with grievance raised by the Revenue in its appeal. The ld.AO has made addition of Rs.10,15,84,690/- on
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