SATISH VISHNU THOMBARE, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR vs. VARSHA PRAFULLA ZENDE, AHMEDNAGAR

ITA 1656/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 October 2025AY 2010-11Bench: SHRI R.K. PANDA (Vice President), MS. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)24 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid and bad in law because the notice under Section 148 was issued on incorrect reasons and without complying with the requirements of Section 151. The Tribunal agreed that the AO could not assess other income if the initial reason for belief of escaped income was not substantiated.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an order allowing the assessee's appeal. The Assessing Officer had reopened the assessment based on information regarding accommodation entries and made an addition. The CIT(A) initially allowed the appeal on legal grounds, and after remand, again allowed it, finding the reassessment notice invalid.

What were the issues?

The key issues were the validity of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act, the correctness of the reasons recorded for reopening, and compliance with Section 151 for obtaining prior approval.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132,Section 147,Section 148,Section 143(3),Section 151,Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(10)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, “B” BENCH, PUNE

Before: SHRI R.K. PANDA & MS. ASTHA CHANDRA

For Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva

PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM :

The appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 07.06.2024 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)/NFAC”] pertaining to Assessment Year (“AY”) 2010-11. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of supply of chemicals. For AY 2010-11, the assessee had filed her original return of income on 17.09.2010 declaring total income at Rs.8,95,759/-. A search and seizure action u/s 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) was co

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 132

All 14,598 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →