JIYO G. LALWANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 23(2)(3), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not afforded an opportunity to file objections to the re-opening before the Assessing Officer (AO) due to the delayed provision of reasons. Both parties agreed to send the matter back to the AO.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal concerned the validity of re-opening of assessment under Section 147. The reasons for re-opening were not provided to the assessee during assessment proceedings and were only furnished during the tribunal hearing.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the validity of the re-opening of assessment due to the failure to provide reasons to the assessee during the assessment proceedings, thereby precluding the assessee from filing objections.
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.
- GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO1,349 citing259 ITR 19 · 2003 · SC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG & SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA
This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)-11, Mumbai dt. 30.11.2012 for A.Y 2003-04.
The first ground raised by the assessee is regarding validity of re- opening u/s 147 of the Act. It has been argued by the ld. counsel at the outset that reasons were not provided during the course of the assessment proceedings and these have been provided during the course of hearing before the Tribunal for the first time in pursuance of the directions of the Bench given on an earlier date. It was submitted that in view of this difficulty, the objections to the validity of the „Reasons‟ recorded could not be submitted to the AO and therefore, this matter may be sent back to the AO for filing requisite objections to re-opening. On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities. However, both the parties agreed during the course of the hearing that this matter may be sent back to the file of the AO for following the due procedure as per law.
We have heard both the parties and gone through the orders of the lower authorities. The admitted position is that the „Reasons‟ were not provided to the assessee during the course of the assessment proceedings and these have been provided now for the first time. Under such circumstances, the assessee was not able to file his objections to the re-opening before the AO. Under these circumstances, both the parties agreed that this matter may be sent back to the file of the AO so that the mandate of the law, as declared by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshaft (India) Ltd., 259 ITR 19 (SC) could be followed. Under these circumstances, we find it appropriate to send all the grounds raised before us back to the file of the AO. The assessee shall file his objections with regard to the re-opening to the AO. The AO shall dispose of these objections by a speaking order before proceeding for re-assessment proceedings, if he found so fit in his decision on the objections raised by the assessee. Requisite opportunity of hearing shall be given to the assesee for filing requisite details and documents as may be required by the AO or as may be considered appropriate by the assessee as per law and facts. The assessee is free to raise all the legal and factual issues before the AO. As a result, the appeal is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 12th February, 2016.
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 →- M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026
- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Rentex Polymers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxDelhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Shila Traders vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 29 Oct 2026