PRASANA RAJU KOTHARI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WD-18(3)(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4669/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 November 2019AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was bad in law as it was passed in violation of the binding precedent laid down by the Bombay High Court in the case of Asian Paints.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged the validity of reopening and an addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO passed the assessment order before the expiry of the statutory period for filing objections after disposing of the assessee's objections.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessment order passed by the AO was valid when it was made before the expiry of the 4-week period stipulated after the disposal of the assessee's objections to the reopening notice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 148

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, “SMC” BENCH,

Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala
Hearing: 19.08.2019Pronounced: 06.11.2019

O R D E R

PER SHAMIM YAHYA, AM:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-29, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”] dated 16/04/2018 and pertains to A.Y.2011-12.

2.

The assessee had challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the validity of reopening and the addition @ 12.5% of the bogus purchase has been upheld by Ld. CIT(A). The assessee has also raised the following ground before ITAT.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →