PUSHPA RAVINDRA KODLIKERI,AURANGABAD vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 615/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 May 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the addition made (Rs. 13,03,650) was less than the prescribed threshold of Rs. 50 lakhs for initiating such proceedings under Section 149(1)(b) as amended by the Finance Act, 2021. The Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. was relied upon.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal pertains to assessment year 2017-18. The Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of reassessment proceedings initiated when the addition made was below the threshold specified in Section 149(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as amended.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 148A,Section 148,Section 149(1)(b)

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, PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 09.05.2024Pronounced: 28.05.2024

Date of Hearing : 09.05.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 28.05.2024 ORDER

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/ 2023-24/1060237031(1), dated 29.01.2024, in proceedings u/s.147 r.w.s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive grievance raised in the instant appeal that the Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in initiating sec.148A/148 proceedings vide corresponding notice dated 21.07.2022; it

2 ITA.No.615/PUN./2024 emerges at the outset that the only addition made herein is of Rs.13,03,650/- i.e., less than the prescribed amount of Rs.50 lakhs or more, u/sec.149(1)(b); as amended vide Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f. 01.04.2021. Their lordships’ latest decision Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. ACIT [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay); has already rejected the Revenue’s stand seeking to apply “roll-over” principle for the purpose of treating the impugned reopening notice herein to have been issued under the erstwhile un-amended statutory provision applicable before 01.04.2021. Faced with this pecuniary aspect of the impugned reopening herein involving the assessee’s taxable income of less than Rs.50 lakhs as prescribed hereinabove; I adopt stricter interpretation Commissioner of Customs vs. Dilip Kumar And Co. & Ors.

[2018] 9 SCC 1 (SC) (FB) to quash the same in very terms.

Ordered accordingly.

3.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 28.05.2024.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →