RUNGTA IRRIGATION LIMITED,DELHI vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1)/KOLKATA, KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Principal Commissioner for reopening the assessment was invalid due to a lack of proper application of mind and adherence to the statutory requirements. Consequently, the reopening proceedings were quashed.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after a search and survey operation. The assessee challenged the reopening, arguing that the approval obtained from the Principal Commissioner under Section 151 was invalid.
What were the issues?
Whether the approval granted by the Principal Commissioner under Section 151 for reopening the assessment was valid and satisfied the requirements of law.
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. SPL’s Siddhartha Ltd.164 citing167 Taxmann.com 113 · 2012 · HC · Read judgment
- Anirudhsinhji Karansinhji Jadeja v. State of Gujarat103 citing5 SCC 302 · 1995 · SC
- United Electrical Co. Pvt. Ltd. 258 ITR 317 (Del), DCIT v. Lotus Hearbals Pvt. Ltd.14 citing167 Taxmann.com 533 · 2024 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Shri Rajesh Kumar, AM & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, JM]
Heard together (7 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
Per Shri Rajesh Kumar, AM ITA Nos. 2399, 2400 & 2401/Kol/2024 Rungta Irrigation Ltd.
All these captioned four appeals filed by the assessee and the three appeals filed by the revenue are against the orders of Ld. CIT(A), Kolkat
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.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax… vs Rungta Irrigation Ltd, New DelhiKolkata15 May 2025Allowed
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Principal Commissioner for reopening the assessment was invalid due to a lack of proper application of mind and adherence to the statutory requirements. Consequently, th...
- Shri Kirodi Mal, Alwar vs Income Tax Officer, AlwarJaipur13 Jul 2022Allowed
Also relies on Anirudhsinhji Karansinhji Jadeja v. State of Gujarat and 1 other authority
The Tribunal recalled its previous order dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution due to a misunderstanding regarding the bench's functioning. The appeal was restored to its original stage for a decision on merits.
- Shri. Jitendra Virwani, Bangalore vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…Bangalore23 Jun 2021Allowed
Also relies on Anirudhsinhji Karansinhji Jadeja v. State of Gujarat and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as it was based on suspicion and surmise without positive material to prove the assessee's ownership or beneficial interest in the bank account. Consequen...
- M/S. Marble Art, New Delhi vs ACIT, New DelhiDelhi8 Mar 2021Allowed
Also relies on Anirudhsinhji Karansinhji Jadeja v. State of Gujarat and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings for AY 2003-04 and 2004-05 were bad in law because the sanction for reopening was not obtained from the competent authority as required by Section 151 of the Act. The T...
- M/S. Marble Art, New Delhi vs ACIT, New DelhiDelhi8 Mar 2021Allowed
Also relies on Anirudhsinhji Karansinhji Jadeja v. State of Gujarat and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings for assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05 were bad in law because the approval for reopening was not obtained from the competent authority as required by Section 151 of ...
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
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
