MRS. SUNANDA DIGAMBAR MALEKAR,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 7(5), PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 354/PUN/2020Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 November 2022AY 2008-093 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that a protective reassessment is not valid in the eyes of law when the substantive assessment has already been completed. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged the reopening of assessment for AY 2008-09, where long-term capital gains were assessed on a protective basis. The substantive assessment for the same gains was completed in AY 2012-13.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of a protective reassessment when a substantive assessment for the same income had already been completed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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, PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE

Before: SHRI S.S. GODARA & DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE

For Appellant: Shri Kishor Phadke
For Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani

PER S.S. GODARA, JM :

1.

This assessee’s appeal for AY 2008-09 arises against the CIT(A), Pune-5’s order dated 31.01.2020, passed in case No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2019-20/1024528073(1), involving proceedings under 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in short the Act.

Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. The assessee’s first and foremost substantive ground challenges validity of the impugned reopening of assessment itself which has assessed adopting long term capital gains of Rs.1,17,02,857/- regarding the sale consideration of Rs.1,21,10,000/- in issue. We note from the Assessing Officer’s detail discussion in para 12 page 7 of his re-assessment dated 25.03.2016 that he has assessed the foregoing long term capital gains only on protective basis in A.Y. 2008-09 before us whereas the substantive assessment to the very effect stood completed on the same date in A.Y. 2012-13. Faced with this situation, we quote DHFL Venture Capital Fund vs. ITO (2019) 34 taxmann.com 300 (Bombay) to conclude that such a protective re-assessment is not valid in eyes of law. The same stands quashed in very terms therefore. The Revenue’s vehement arguments supporting both the learned lower authorities’ action to this effect are rejected accordingly.

3.

All other pleadings on merits raised in the instant appeal stand rendered academic.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →