ALL INDIA MOTOR TRANSPORT CONGRESS,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, (EXEMPTION), WARD-1(2), NEW DELHI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was invalid as it was made without any fresh tangible material and was based on a mere change of opinion. The original assessment had been completed under Section 143(3), implying the AO had already applied his mind to the facts.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a registered entity under Section 12A, had its assessment completed under Section 143(3). Subsequently, the Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment under Section 147, proposing to add life membership fees of Rs. 28,56,000/-. The assessee contended that these fees were capital receipts and the reopening was based on a change of opinion without new tangible material.
What were the issues?
Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 were valid without new tangible material and in the absence of proper compliance with the mandatory conditions for reopening. Whether life membership fees received by the assessee constitute a capital receipt or a revenue receipt.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 147,Section 148,Section 143(3),Section 11,Section 12,Section 13
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)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.
- GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO1,349 citing259 ITR 19 · 2003 · SC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “F+SMC”: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI
O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A)-40, New Delhi dated 05/07/2018 for the Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. (a)That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not quashing the impugned reassessment order passed by Ld. AO u/s 147 and that too without assuming jurisdiction as per law and without complying with mandatory conditions u/s 147 to 151 as envisaged under the Income Tax Act, 1961. 1(b) That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. C1T(A) has erred in law and on facts in not quashing the impugned reassessment order passed by Ld. AO and that too without providing the copy of „reason‟ recorded and not seeking & disposing objections of the assessee with respect to reopening of the assessment and further erred in not complying with the procedure laid down by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. ITO, (2003) 259 ITR 19. 1(c) That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in not quashing the impugned reassessment order passed by Ld. AO u/s 147, is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case and the same is not sustainable on various legal and factual grounds. Page | 1 All India Motor Transport Congress Vs. ITO (Exemption), (Assessment Year: 2012-13)
2. (a)That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making addition of Rs.28,56,000/- on account of life membership fees by treating it as revenue receipt, more so when it was in the nature of capital receipt and impugned addition has been made by recording incorrect facts and findings and without observing the principles of 2(b) That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making addition of Rs.28,56,000/- on account of life membership fees, is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case, more so when this issue has already been examined and accepted in earlier assessment years as well as in the year under consideration during the course of assessment proceedings u/s 143(3).
3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not reversing the action of Ld. AO in charging interest u/s 234B and 234D of Income Tax Act, 1961.”
The brief facts of the case is that the Assessee is a company having aim and objectives of promotion of interest of the persons engaged in the business of motor transport by eliminating unfair competition. It is registered u/s 12A of the Act. It filed its return of income on 26.09.2012 declaring Nil income. The assessment was completed at the same income u/s 143(3) of the Act on 18.03.2015. The case of the Assessee was reopened u/s 148 of the Act by issue of notice dated 19.07.2016. On the perusal of the balancesheet the ld AO noted that the Assessee has received Life Membership Fees of Rs. 28,56,000/- which was not included in the income of the Assessee as it is directly credited to the balancesheet as capital receipt.
The ld AR submitted that Life Membership Fees is paid by the members once in the life time and therefore, it is not voluntarily donation. Thus, it was contested that it is a capital receipt. The ld AO considered the explanation of the Assessee and held that life membership fees is not voluntary contribution and therefore, it is not also come with any specific direction and therefore, it is chargeable to tax. He held that it is not a capital receipt and also not a corpus donation. Thus, he made the addition of Rs. 2856000/- to the income of the Assessee and assessed the Assessee u/s 143(3) of the Act read with section 147 of the Act. The Assessee All India Motor Transport Congress Vs. ITO (Exemption), (Assessment Year: 2012-13) challenged the same before the ld CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the Assessee and therefore the Assessee is in appeal before us.
The ld AR firstly submitted that the ld AO proceeded to reassess the income of the Assessee without providing copy of the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment. Therefore, the assessment is bad in law. He further, stated that the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 by the ld AO is devoid of any merit as there is no fresh tangible material‟‟ come into the possession of the ld AO for reopening of the assessment. He submitted that it is on the perusal of the same material reopening is carried out. He submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the Assessee by the series of decisions. He further submitted that the reassessment proceedings are initiated on the basis of mere „change of opinion‟. He stated that assessment has been framed u/s 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, the ld AO has applied his mind to the above facts. He further submitted that reopening is made on the basis of „audit objection‟ which is not permissible. On the merits he submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the Assessee by 32 ITR (T) 152 wherein, Life Membership Fees is considered as corpus donation. In view of this, he submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the Assessee on merits too.
The ld DR relied upon the orders of the lower authorities.
We have carefully considered the rival contentions as well as perused the orders of the lower authorities. Admittedly in this case the original assessment was passed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 18.03.2015. At the time of original assessment, Assessee submitted details as required by the ld AO. The complete books of accounts were produced which was examined on test check basis. On that basis the ld AO held that Assessee has fulfilled the conditions laid down in section 11 to 13 of the Act. He also computed the income of the Assessee. Subsequently, the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the Assessee on 19.07.2016 wherein, notice itself is stated that the income of Rs. 2856000/- is assessable for the above year. The original assessment was passed on 18.03.2015 whereas, the reopening was made on 19.07.2016. As per the reasons recorded, there is no reference of any tangible material coming into the possession of the ld AO for reopening. The Page | 3
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Mohit Chandak, Chennai vs DCIT Central Circle 3(3), ChennaiChennai9 Jul 2025Allowed
Also relies on GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO
The Tribunal held that once an assessment order is passed and proceedings are concluded, the Assessing Officer cannot withdraw or cancel it to redo the assessment. Relying on High Court decisions, the Tribunal found the ...
- Income Tax Officer-6(4), Lucknow vs Shri Zarrar Hussain, LucknowLucknow30 Aug 2022Allowed
Also relies on GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO
The Tribunal held that the reassessment order was invalid because the reasons for reopening were not furnished to the assessee before the completion of the assessment, despite the assessee's request. This failure vitiate...
- M. Abbas & Co., Mumbai vs ACIT 24(2), MumbaiMumbai21 Apr 2026Allowed
Also relies on GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were vitiated because the assessee was not supplied with the actual reasons recorded for reopening the assessment, violating principles of natural justice.
- Anshoyaben Bhagvanjibhai Bhojani, Morbi vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, MorbiRajkot7 Apr 2026Allowed
Also relies on GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO
The Tribunal held that the notice under section 148 of the Act was issued beyond the surviving period, making it invalid. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
- Nisha Dudheria, Bangalore vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(3), BengaluruBangalore12 Mar 2026Allowed
Also relies on GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer is duty-bound to dispose of objections raised by the assessee against the reopening proceedings by passing a speaking order before passing the reassessment order. Failure to d...
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 →- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026