SHRI AMARJEET SINGH BHATIA,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1), RAIPUR

ITA 63/RPR/2018Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 July 2023AY 2007-08Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)19 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reopening proceedings were initiated without valid jurisdiction by the AO, as per CBDT Instructions. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee's income was reopened beyond four years of the original assessment. The Assessing Officer (AO) added Rs. 21,49,054 on account of alleged concealment of income, which was sustained by the CIT(A). The assessee challenged the reopening on grounds of lack of jurisdiction and invalidity.

What were the issues?

Whether the reopening of assessment under Section 148/147 was valid given the AO's lack of pecuniary jurisdiction as per CBDT instructions. Whether the assessment order was liable to be quashed due to lack of valid jurisdiction.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 151,Section 119,Section 143(3),Section 143(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(8)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, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR

Before: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM

Hearing: 27/04/2023Pronounced: 07/07/2023

Per Arun Khodpia, AM : The assessee has filed this appeal against the order passed by the CIT(A)-I, Raipur, dated 02.01.2018 for the assessment year 2007-2008, on the following ground :-

1.

That the original assessment was completed u/s143(3) and the notice issued u/s148 is beyond four years, hence, the same is illegal, bad in law and without juri iction as there is no failure on part of Assessee to produce relevant facts fully and truly.

2.

That the Id CIT(A) has erred in facts as well as in l

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →