DILIP KANHAIYALAL BHANSALI,GHOTI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), NASHIK, NASHIK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 393/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2024AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)2 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 reopening and reassessment proceedings were not sustainable. Relying on judicial precedents, the Tribunal quashed the impugned reopening/re-assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2012-13 arose from reassessment proceedings initiated on the belief that income from the sale of immovable property had escaped assessment. The reopening reasons indicated a need for detailed verification and in-depth enquiry.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of the reopening and reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),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, PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 22.03.2024Pronounced: 14.05.2024

Date of Hearing : 22.03.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 14.05.2024 ORDER

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/ 2023-24/1060080707(1), dated 24.01.2024, in proceedings u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

2.

It emerges that the first and foremost issue herein is that of validity of the impugned reopening/reassessment itself wherein the learned Assessing Officer had recorded his reasons to believe that the taxpayer’s corresponding taxable income arising from sale of immovable property; had escaped

2 ITA.No.393/PUN./2024 assessment. The Revenue could hardly dispute that the NFAC’s lower appellate discussion in para 4.1 at page-4 has reproduced the said reopening reasons making it clear that the alleged income required “detailed verification as well as in- depth enquiry is needed for which the case is reopened….”

3. Faced with this situation, the undersigned is of the considered opinion in light of PCIT vs. Manzil Dinesh Kumar Shah, [2018] 406 ITR 326 (Guj.) and PCIT vs. Maheswari Devi [2023] 455 ITR 755 (Jharkhand) that such a course of action is not sustainable in sec.148/147 proceedings. I thus quash the impugned reopening/re-assessment for this precise reason alone.

All other issues on merits stand rendered academic.

3.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 14.05.2024.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →