ANNAKODIRAJ,TIRUNELVELI vs. ITO, WARD-1,, TIRUNELVELI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that when the reasons for reopening of assessment do not form part of the additions made in the reassessment order, the Assessing Officer is precluded from making other additions. This is in line with judicial pronouncements from the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court and the Supreme Court.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The reassessment was initiated based on cash deposits and withdrawals, but the additions made in the assessment order were for estimated net profit and unaccounted milk purchase, which were not part of the original reasons for reopening.
What were the issues?
Whether additions made in the reassessment order are valid when they do not form part of the original reasons for reopening the assessment.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 147,Section 148,Section 148A(d),Section 144,Section 144B
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.
- National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT5,834 citing229 ITR 383 · 1998 · SC
- Adhunik Niryatlspat Ltd (2011) 63 DTR 212 (Del) (iii) Martech Peripherals (P) Ltd. v. DCIT43 citing394 ITR 733 · 2017 · HC
- PVP Ventures Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT17 citing65 Taxmann.com 221 · 2016 · HC
- Tractors and Farm Equipment Ltd. v. ACIT14 citing409 ITR 369 · 2018 · HC
- Anand Cine Services (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax6 citing169 Taxmann.com 236 · 2024 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA
PER GEORGE GEORGE K: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 09.10.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2017-18. :- 2 -:
The assessee has raised legal grounds. One of the legal ground raised is Ground No.4.1, which reads as under:-
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 →- Chandan Kumar Bathual vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Cuttack-Iii Range, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Manoranjan Sadangi vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Gopalpur Range, GanjamOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Bijaya Kumar Parekh vs. State Tax Officer, CT And GST Balangir Circle, BalangirOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Puspanjali Bhuyan vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S A2Z Infra Engineering LTD vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026