MEENA JEWELS AND PEARLS,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1225/HYD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 February 2026AY 2010-1124 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment after more than four years was invalid as there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. The AO's action was based on suspicion and change of opinion, not on concrete evidence of bogus purchases.

What were the facts?

The assessee's assessment was reopened for the second time after an initial reassessment. The Assessing Officer (AO) proposed to add Rs. 58,15,000/- towards alleged bogus purchases based on information received from another tax authority regarding inflated purchase values.

What were the issues?

Whether the reopening of assessment after the expiry of four years was valid, and if the addition for bogus purchases was justified without independent verification by the AO.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(7)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.

1 ITA.No. 1225/Hyd./2024 आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA G. ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अपी.सं / ITA No.1225/Hyd./2024 Assessment Year 2010-2011 Meena Jewels and The ACIT, Pearls, Hyderabad. vs. Circle-5(1), Telangana. Hyderabad. PAN AAMFM8114F (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessee by: CA P Murali Mohan Rao राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue by: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 21.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: 25.02.2026 आदेश/ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, V.P. : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the Order dated 24.09.2024 of the learned CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment year 2010-2011. 2 ITA.No. 1225/Hyd./2024 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. “The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law.

2.

The Ld. CIT (A) erred in dismissing the appeal without appreciating the facts of the case.

3.

The Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition made merely on the ground that the appellant has not provided any additional evidenc

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.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

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

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →