THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX II vs. JAGSON INTERNATIONAL LTD.
What did the High Court hold?
The Tribunal decided that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the reopening was based on a re-appraisal of existing material, not new information. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.
What were the facts?
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that re-assessment proceedings under Section 147/143(3) were invalid. The ITAT found that the reopening of assessment was not justified as no new material came to the Assessing Officer after the original assessment was completed.
What were the issues?
Whether the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was valid when based on re-appraisal of existing material and not new information.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide 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.
- Indian & Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT205 citing119 ITR 996 · 1979 · SC
ITA No. 1238 of 2008
Page 1 of 3
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 21.10.2008
ITA No. 1238/2008
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, NEW DELHI
...... Appellant -versus-
JAGSON INTERNATIONAL LTD
..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant
: Mr Arvind Verma For the Respondent
: Mr Prakash Kumar
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
Whether the Reporters of local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment ?
To be referred to Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest ?
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) + CM 14854/2008 & CM 14855/2008 (exemption) *
Allowed subject to just exceptions.
CMs stand disposed of. ITA 1238/2008
ITA No. 1238 of 2008
Page 2 of 3 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 20.3.2008 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No 13/D/2003 pertaining to the assessment year 1998-99. The only issue that is sought to be raised in the present appeal arises from the Tribunal’s decision that the re-assessment proceedings under Section 147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were invalid. 2. The Tribunal has examined the facts and circumstances of the case and has arrived at the conclusion that the re-opening of the assessment which had been done under Section 147(3) was not justified as no new material had come before the Assessing Officer which could have enabled him to have reasons to believe that any income had escaped assessment. The Tribunal also noted that letter which was relied upon by the department as the new information/material coming into the possession of the Assessing Officer was a letter dated 28.8.99. The Tribunal noted that this could not constitute new information coming after the assessment had been completed in as much as the assessment order under Section 143(3) was passed after the date of the said letter. The Tribunal was, therefore, of the view that no new
ITA No. 1238 of 2008
Page 3 of 3 information/material that had come to the Assessing Officer after completing the original assessment to form any belief about the escapement of the assessee’s income and that such a purported belief was entirely based on re-appraisal or re-consideration of the material/information already available on record at the time of completion of the original assessments. Taking note of the Supreme Court decision in the case of India and Easter Newspaper Society vs. CIT : 119 ITR 996 (SC) the Tribunal accepted the assessee’s plea that the re-opening of the assessments was not warranted under law. Consequently, the re-assessment completed by the Assessing Officer under Section 147/143(3) of the said Act was quashed. 3. The Tribunal has correctly appreciated the law. No interference with the decision of the Tribunal is called for. In any event, no substantial question of law arises for our consideration. The appeal is dismissed. BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J October 16, 2008 mb
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 →- Shri Yaras Suresh Babu Prabhu Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026