INCOME TAX OFFICER, PAREL vs. N K FAMILY TRUST, LOWER PAREL
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer did not dispose of the Assessee's objections by way of a separate speaking order and proceeded to pass the assessment order. Following the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Kesar Terminals and Infrastructure Limited, the Tribunal quashed the Assessment Order.
What were the facts?
The Revenue preferred an appeal challenging the CIT(A)'s order deleting additions made by the Assessing Officer. The Assessee filed Cross-Objections challenging the validity of the Assessment Order. The Assessee contended that the Assessing Officer failed to dispose of objections to the reasons for reopening before passing the assessment order.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act is valid when the Assessing Officer failed to dispose of the Assessee's objections to the reasons for reopening by way of a separate speaking order.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(5)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
- 153 (Gujarat) 8 Shakti Karnawat v. ITO171 citing296 ITR 90 · 2008 · HC
- Bayer Material Science Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT89 citing382 ITR 333 · 2016 · HC
- Kesar Terminals & Infrastructure Limited v. DCIT7 citing171 Taxmann.com 800 · 2025 · HC
- 2016) 47 CCH 0304 Del Trib. (iv) Bayer Material Science Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT5 citing237 Taxmann 723 · 2016 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “J (SMC
[ Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member:
The present appeal and Cross Objection pertain to Assessment Year 2012-2013. The Revenue has preferred appeal challenging the Order, dated 17/10/2025, passed by the Commissioner of Income
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. Middlex, Puri vs. Commnr. Of State Tax, Banijyakar Bhawan, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Sunadei Indane Gramin Vitrak, Nayagarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, Cuttack, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Sunanda Raul vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods Nad Services Tax, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Zakir Hussain Ali Khan vs. Additional Commissioner (Appeals), BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Manorama Nayak, Khorda vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar Iv Circle, KhurdaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026