RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the addition was made under a different section (115BBC) than the one stated in the reasons for reopening (Section 68). This discrepancy meant the AO failed to assume proper jurisdiction for reassessment.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a charitable organization, declared nil income for AY 2012-13. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment based on survey findings suggesting undisclosed donations. However, the addition was ultimately made under Section 115BBC, not Section 68 as initially proposed in the reasons for reopening.
What were the issues?
Whether reassessment proceedings are valid when the addition made is under a different section than that stated in the reasons for reopening. Whether reassessment initiated after four years from the end of the assessment year is valid without fulfilling conditions of proviso to Section 147.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(16)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.
- National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT5,834 citing229 ITR 383 · 1998 · SC
- CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.1,673 citing320 ITR 561 · 2010 · SC · Read judgment
- Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO862 citing236 ITR 34 · 1999 · SC
- CIT v. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd.814 citing198 ITR 297 · 1992 · SC · Read judgment
- Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar695 citing268 ITR 332 · 2004 · HC
- CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd.694 citing331 ITR 236 · 2011 · HC
- PCIT v. Lark Chemicals (P) Ltd.162 citing195 Taxmann 117 · 2010 · HC
- Majinder Singh Kang v. CIT83 citing344 ITR 358 · 2012 · HC
- PCIT v. Lark Chemicals (P) Ltd.80 citing99 Taxmann.com 312 · 2018 · SC
- CIT v. Lark Chemicals Ltd.38 citing45 Taxmann.com 20 · 2014 · HC
- Bom) VII. Prashant S. Joshi vs. ITO 324 ITR 154 HC (Bom) VIII. Austin Engineering Co. Ltd. v. JCIT17 citing335 ITR 234 · 2011 · HC
- CIT v. MehakFinvest (P) Ltd.17 citing367 ITR 769 · 2014 · HC
- Aayojan Developers v. ITO11 citing10 Taxmann.com 226 · 2011 · HC
- PKM Advisory Services P Ltd. v. ITO9 citing339 ITR 585 · HC
- 8 citing
- Hindustan Level Ltd. v. R.B.Wadkar6 citing137 Taxmann 279 · 2004 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE
Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
The captioned appeals at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Ys. 2012-13 to 2017-18 are directed against the separate orders dated 20.03.2024 framed by ld.CIT(A), Pune-11 emanating out of respective Assessment Orders dated 24.12.2019 passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).
The issues raised by the assessee in the instant batch of appeals are common. We therefore proceed to adjudicate these appeals by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity.
We will first espouse ITA No.1121/PUN/2024 for A.Y. 2012-13
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 →- M/S South INDIA Trading Company vs. Additional Commissioner Adjudication CGST Delhi North & Anr.Delhi · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Rishi Stonex vs. The State Of Assam And 5 OthersGauhati · 13 Oct 2026
- Gopal Datt vs. Vishal Kumar SharmaUttarakhand · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Do Nam Enterprise And Anr vs. The Union Of INDIA And 2 OrsGauhati · 13 Oct 2026
- M Sundaravel vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Central GST And Central ExciseMadras · 13 Oct 2026