BHANWARI DEVI,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2), ALWAR, ALWAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 76/JPR/2023Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 May 2023AY 2011-12Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)13 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the AO's action of reopening the assessment and making an addition was not justified due to lack of proper verification and non-service of notice. The CIT(A) also failed to consider the assessee's submissions and supporting documents.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an illiterate housewife, had her agricultural land acquired by the government, and the sale proceeds were invested in a bank term deposit. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated reassessment proceedings based on departmental software information about a Rs. 20,00,000/- deposit, assuming it was from undisclosed sources, without proper verification or service of notice.

What were the issues?

Whether the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated without proper verification and service of notice, and whether the addition made by the AO was justified without considering the assessee's evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 144,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(4)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, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR

Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 76/JP/2023

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Agarwal( CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@
Hearing: 22/03/2023Pronounced: 03/05/2023

vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →