BHANU VYAPAAR PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-6(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2084/KOL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 November 2017AY 2006-20073 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reassessment order is bad in law because the Assessing Officer failed to furnish the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment to the assessee before completing the assessment, despite requests.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal challenges the validity of reopening assessment proceedings and the disallowance of provision for loss on derivative transactions. The ITAT directed the Revenue to verify if the reasons for reopening were provided to the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the reassessment proceedings are valid when the reasons for reopening were not provided to the assessee before the assessment was completed.

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(2)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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

order : November 10, 2017 ORDER Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member :- This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Central-I, Kolkata [hereinafter the ‘ld. CIT(A)’], dated 17.09.2014 passed u/s 143(3)/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’) for the assessment year 2006-07 on the following grounds: “

1. That the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming that the reopening of assessment proceedings u/s 147 of the IT Act is valid and that there was no change of opinion of the AO.

2. That the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of the provision for loss on derivative transactions amounting to Rs.76,62,632/-.

3. That the appellant craves leave to add fresh ground and/or modify or substitute any grounds before or at the time of hearing.”

2. When the matter had come before the Bench on earlier occasions, the ld. Departmental Representative (DR) was directed to verify the assessment records and confirmed whether the allegations of the assessee that the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment u/s 147 of the Act was not furnished to the assessee was correct or not.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →