ITO, TIRUNELVELI vs. ARIYATHALAIVAR RAJA, TIRUNELVELI
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 held that reopening of assessment under Section 147 is not permissible if the time limit for issuing notice under Section 143(2) has not expired. The Assessing Officer exceeded jurisdiction by issuing a Section 147 notice in such a scenario.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed the CIT(Appeals) order which set aside the reopening of assessment. The assessee filed a cross-objection, which was admitted after condoning a delay.
What were the issues?
Whether reopening of assessment under Section 147 is valid when the time limit for issuing notice under Section 143(2) has not expired.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
आदेश /O R D E R
PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal of the Revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Madurai, dated 29.03.2017 and pertains to assessment year 2013-14. The assessee has filed cross-objection in respect of the same order of the CIT(Appeals).
No one appeared for the assessee even though the notice of hearing was received by the assessee by RPAD. Therefore, we heard the Ld. Departmental Representative and proceeded to dispose the appeal on merit.
There was a delay of 16 days in filing the cross-objection by the assessee. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay. We have perused the affidavit filed by the assessee. We find that there was sufficient cause for not filing the cross-objection before the stipulated time. Therefore, we condone the delay and admit the cross-objection.
The only issue arises for consideration is with regard to reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act').
Smt. Ruby George, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the CIT(Appeals) set aside the reopening of assessment on the ground that the time limit for issuing notice under Section 143(2) of the Act has not expired. According to the Ld. D.R., there is no provision in the Income-tax Act which bars the Assessing Officer from issuing notice under Section 147 of the Act even though the time limit for issuing notice under Section 143(2) of the Act has not expired. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals) is not justified in allowing the claim of the assessee.
We have considered the submission of the Ld. D.R. and perused the relevant material available on record. Admittedly, the time limit for issuing notice under Section 143(2) of the Act has not expired. The question arises for consideration is when the time limit for issuing notice under Section 143(2) has not expired, can the Assessing Officer reopen the assessment on the ground that the income otherwise taxable escaped assessment? This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that in case the income has escaped from assessment, the Assessing Officer can very well issue notice under Section 143(2) of the Act and assess the income which escaped assessment. It is not necessary to initiate reassessment proceeding to reopen the assessment. The proceeding under Section 147 of the Act can be reopened only in case the assessment proceeding was completed or terminated by operation of law. In the case before us, the time limit for issuing notice under Section 143(2) of the Act has not expired, therefore, the Assessing Officer exceeded his jurisdiction in issuing notice under Section 147 of the Act. Therefore, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is confirmed.
The cross-objection filed by the assessee is only in support of the order of the CIT(Appeals), therefore, it becomes infructuous.
In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue and cross- objection filed by the assessee stand dismissed.
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 →- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vajram Infra Material Industries vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Tyre Center vs. The Superintendent Of CGSTAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026