SMT MEERA DEVI,AURAIYA vs. ITO1(1)(4), ETAWAH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4/AGR/2024Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 February 2025AY 2011-124 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings and consequential penalty appeals. The reopening reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer were found to be unsustainable in law as they lacked tangible material.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed four appeals against orders related to reassessment proceedings and penalties for assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12. The appeals were filed with a significant delay, which was condoned.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147/148 based on vague and unsubstantiated reasons. The sustainability of penalties levied under Section 271(1)(c) was also considered.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 271(1)(c),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, AGRA BENCH, “SMC” AGRA

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI M. BALAGANESH

Pronounced: 05.02.2025

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM

1.

1. The assessee has filed four appeals 3, 4 & 5/Agr/2024 pertaining to assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12. & 3/Agr/2024 for AY 2010-11 and ITA Nos. 4 & 5/Agr/2024 for AY 2011-12 are directed against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s orders, each dated 29.12.2022 passed in DIN and order nos. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1048319523(1); ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1048321433(1); ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1048320025(1) and ITBA/NFAC/S /250/2022-23/1048321571(1), involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) and 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), respectively.

2.

Cases called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. She is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

3. The delay of 311 days in filing all the assessee’s instant appeals is condoned in light of larger interest of justice as well as in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

3.

It emerges during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from Revenue side that the assessee has filed her instant twin quantum and penalty appeals each i.e.

1.

& 3/Agr/2024 for AY 2010-11 and & 5/Agr/2024 for AY 2011-12, respectively against the learned lower authorities’ respective findings firstly section 148/147 proceedings claiming unexplained investments addition etc. and levied section 271(1)(c) with corresponding penalties; respectively.

4.

The Revenue side is indeed very fair at the outset in making it clear that the assessee’s instant four appeals involve identical set of facts. That being the case, we notice from a perusal of the assessee “lead” appeal that the learned Assessing Officers had recorded his reopening reasons that the assessee’s taxable income (on proximation basis) had escaped assessment. We are of the considered view in this factual backdrop that such a casual reopening reasons by the learned Assessing Officer are hardly sustainable in law as the same have to be recorded based on tangible material pinpointing escapement of all specific taxable income from being assessed as held in CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India, 2010 (2) SCC 723.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →