ITO, KOTA vs. PATEL AGARWAL & COMPANY, KOTA
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the notice under Section 148 was indeed issued to a non-existent entity. The capital gains were also disclosed and enquired into by the AO in the partner's case, making the reopening of the firm's assessment invalid.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147 against a firm for assessing long-term capital gains. The CIT(A) quashed the assessment order, holding that the notice under Section 148 was issued to a non-existent person as the firm had dissolved.
What were the issues?
Whether the reassessment proceedings under Section 147 were validly initiated against a dissolved firm and whether the capital gains were correctly assessed in the firm's hands.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR
Before: SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM & SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM
PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, J.M.
This appeal by the revenue is directed against the order of ld. CIT (A), Kota,
dated 28.08.2013 pertaining to assessment year 2009-10. The revenue has raised
the following grounds of appeal :-
“ On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT (A) has erred in :
(i) Cancelling the AO’s order u/s 147 for assessing the long term capital gains in the status of the firm, ignoring altogether the facts of the relevant registered deed, which explicitly reflected that the plot in question was in possession of the firm upto 26.09.2008 i.e. date of sale ;
(ii) Accepting the additional evidence without calling for any remand report from the Assessing Officer ;
2 ITA No. 815/JP/2013 M/s. Patel Agarwal & Company
(iii) The appellant craves liberty of raise additional ground and to modify/amend the ground of appeal at the time of hearing.” 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the case of the assessee was
picked up for scrutiny assessment and the assessment under section 144 read with
section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was passed vide order dated 6th March, 2013. While framing the assessment, the AO
computed the income by invoking the provisions of section 50C of the Act at Rs.
1,17,57,820/-. On further appeal to the ld. CIT (A), the appeal of the assessee was
allowed and the assessment order was quashed on the ground that the said notice
under section 148 was issued against the non-existing person.
Now the revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal.
The only effective ground is against cancelling the assessment order under
section 147 of the Act.
4.1. The ld. D/R submitted that the ld. CIT (A) was not justified in cancelling the
order.
4.2. On the contrary, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that all the
evidences were placed before the AO and it was contended that the firm had already
been dissolved.
4.3. We have heard rival contentions, perused the material available on record
and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that the ld. CIT (A)
has given the finding of fact by observing as under :-
“ From the perusal of copy of order sheet in the case of Shri Subhash Agarwal, it was seen that the AO asked for details of property sold and purchased with supporting document. The AO recorded on the order
3 ITA No. 815/JP/2013 M/s. Patel Agarwal & Company
sheet that the property was purchased on 27.07.1996 in co-ownership with Shri Mani Bhai Patel. It was also noted by the AO that copy of allotment letter of RIICO allotting plot in joint name of Shri Mani Bhai Patel and Shri Subhash Agarwal was furnished by A/R of Shri Subhash Agarwal. From the above, it is clear that the issue of taxing the capital gain in the hands of partner was before AO and he had made detailed enquiries before concluding the assessment in the case of Shri Subhash Agarwal. Without going into the other aspects of the case, the issue is decided on legal grounds only. As mentioned by me earlier, the firm ceased to exists on death of one of the partners and, therefore, notice u/s 148 cannot be issued to a none existing person. Once this fact came to knowledge of AO, he should have withdrawn the notice and served it on the legal representative of the deceased partner and the sole surviving partner as representative of dissolved firm. It is also held that the capital gain arising from above transaction was disclosed in the hands of partner and was enquired into by the AO, therefore, reopening of assessment in the case of firm is merely change of opinion (it is worth mentioning that the AO of assessee and its partner, Shri Subhash Agarwal is same (ITO, Ward 1(1), Kota). Therefore, the reopening of assessment is also held to be invalid. The very basis, on which the assessment order was passed, did not survive. Therefore, order u/s 147 is cancelled.”
The finding of facts as mentioned above, is not controverted by the revenue.
Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere in the order of ld. CIT (A), same is
hereby affirmed. The ground of the revenue is rejected.
4 ITA No. 815/JP/2013 M/s. Patel Agarwal & Company
In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 10 /03/2017.
Sd/- Sd/- ( HkkxpUn] ½ ( dqy Hkkjr) (BHAG CHAND ) ( KUL BHARAT ) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Jaipur Dated:- 10/03/2017. d/ आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेषित@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू
The Appellant- The ITO Ward 1(1),Kota. 2. The Respondent – M/s. Patel Agarwal & Company, Kota. 3. The CIT(A). 4. The CIT, 5. The DR, ITAT, Jaipur 6. Guard File (ITA No. 815/JP/2013) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
सहायक पंजीकार@ Aेेपेजंदज. त्महपेजतंत
5 ITA No. 815/JP/2013 M/s. Patel Agarwal & Company
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. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- Akshaya Consortium vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Dipanshu Aggarwal vs. Director General Of GST IntelligenceDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Dezinetree Projects PVT. LTD. vs. Spokes Digital Inc And AnrDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 28 Oct 2026