How many judgments cite 394 ITR 146 (Guj.) 2. Varshaben S. Patel v. ITO?

295 judgments on BharatTax cite 394 ITR 146 (Guj.) 2. Varshaben S. Patel v. ITO (338 ITR 51), spanning 2012 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does 394 ITR 146 (Guj.) 2. Varshaben S. Patel v. ITO come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 147, Section 148, Section 143(3), Section 68, Section 133(6), Section 142(1).

394 ITR 146 (Guj.) 2. Varshaben S. Patel v. ITO

338 ITR 51High Court2011#263 most cited

What is 394 ITR 146 (Guj.) 2. Varshaben S. Patel v. ITO authority for?

Reasons for reopening an assessment must be specific and not vague, scanty, or based on borrowed satisfaction. The Assessing Officer must quantify the escaped income.

295

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Varshaben S. Patel v. ITO · section 147 · section 148 · reassessment notice · vague reasons · borrowed satisfaction · escaped income

Sections most often in play

Section 147 Section 148 Section 143(3)Section 68 Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 151

Issues it is cited on

undisclosed foreign income and assets section 149(1)(c)section 4(2)section 201(3)section 158ba section 150 unexplained jewellery section 70 beyond four years section 18 section 149(1)(b)statement under section 132(4)

Judgments citing 394 ITR 146 (Guj.) 2. Varshaben S. Patel v. ITO

ACIT, Central Circle - 1(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Adhunik Cement Ltd., (Now Dalmia Bharat Cement), Guwahati

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1375/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicialmember)

Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 250

…applying the proposition laid down by the Jurisdictional High Court in G&G Pharma India (supra) we hold that the reopening of assessment is bad in law” 7.3. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Signature Hotels (P) Ltd. vs ITO and another, reported in 338 ITR 51 (Delhi) has under similar circumstances held as follows: “For the A.Y. 2003-04, the return of income of the assessee company was accepted u/s 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and was not selected for scrutiny. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 148 which was objected by the assessee. The Assessing Officer rejected the objecti…

Manoj Kumar Jain, Agra vs. ITO-1(2), Agra

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 277/AGR/2017[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Agra03 May 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: : Shri A.D. Jainassessment Year: 2002-03

Section 147

…ansaction was bogus and that the entire amount was the assessee"s income from undisclosed source, which had escaped assessment. Heard. In ‘Meenakshi Overseas’ (supra), under similar facts and 8. circumstances, relying on ‘Signature Hotels (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO’, 338 ITR 51 (Del), it has been held that the reasons must be self-evident and they must speak for themselves; that the tangible material which forms the basis for the belief that income has escaped assessment must be evident from a reading of the reasons; and that where the link between the information made available to the AO and the formation of belief is a…

Choice Buildestate Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, ground no.2 taken by the assessee company is allowed

ITA 431/JPR/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar &For Respondent: Shri Ran Singh (Addl. CIT)

Section 132(4)Section 139(2)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…on money. Accordingly, it was submitted that the Assessing Officer was not justified in resorting to action u/s 148 of the Act. Further, ld. AR has placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Signature Hotels (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (2011) 338 ITR 51 (Delhi). 4. In respect of ground No. 2, the assessee company has challenged the addition of Rs. 35,00,000/- received towards the share application M/s Choice Buildestate Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur money u/s 68 of the Act. In this regard, ld. AR vehemently argued the matter and his contentions as also stated in the written submissions are a…

Asstt.Commissioner of Income Tax 1(2), Raipur (Cg) vs. M/S Maruti Clean Coal & Power Ltd, Raipur(Cg)

ITA 98/BIL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 Mar 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Ram Lal Negi)

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Mishra, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Salil Kapoor, Adv. , Raman

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 68

…sions discussed hereinbefore, the basic requirement that the AO must apply his mind to the materials in order to have reasons to believe that the income of the Assessee escaped assessment is missing in the present case. 11. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in 338 ITR 51 had the occasion to consider identical set of facts and observed as under:- 13 Annexure attached to the said proforma placed on record of the petitioner reads as under: Beneficiary’s Value of entry taken Instrument No. by which Date on name entry taken which entry taken Signature Hotels 500000 (AC No.-21060) 09-Oct-02 Pvt. Ltd. Name of account Ba…

M/S. Sharmilee Furnishing Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 4859/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava[Assessment Year: 2005-06] M/S Sharmilee Furnishing P. Ltd Vs. The I.T.O G-F, Jmd Regent Plaza Ward - 8(1) M.G. Road, Gurgaon New Delhi Pan : Aahcs 5999 J [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 08.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.11.2017 Assessee By : Shri B.L. Gupta, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.K. Jain, Sr. Dr Order Per B.P. Jain

For Appellant: Shri B.L. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148

…es not acquire any jurisdiction to make the assessment / re-assessment u/s. 147/148 of the Act. The reliance is placed upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Signature Hotels P. Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer and Another, reported in (2011) 338 ITR 51 (Delhi). The relevant portion of the decision is reproduced hereinunder: “Held, allowing the petition, that the reassessment proceedings were initiated on the basis of information received from the Director of Income Tax (Investigation) that the petitioner had introduced money amounting to Rs.5 lakhs during financial year 2002-03 as stated in the…

M/S Anant Concrete Products Pvt. Ltd., Meerut vs. ITO, Meerut

In the result, all the additions would

ITA 1632/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Shri Premjit S. Kashyap, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kaushlendra Tiwari, Sr. D.R

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “SMC” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.No.1632/Del./2017 Assessment Year 2009-2010 Anant Concrete Products The Income Tax Officer Pvt. Ltd., 226, Prem Puri, vs. Ward-1(1) Railway Road, Meerut. Meerut. PAN AACCA8060D (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Premjit S. Kashyap, C.A. For Revenue : Shri Kaushlendra Tiwari, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 03.11.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 08.11.2017 ORDER This appeal by assessee has been directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), Aligarh, dated 11th January, 2017 for A.Y. 2009-2010. 2…

S. Jagit Singh L/H. of Late Sh. Joginder Singh, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3187/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 3187/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 S. Jagjit Singh Vs Income Tax Officer, L/H Of Late Sh. Joginder Singh Ward-50(1), Prop. Of M/S Super Industries, New Delhi A-515/1, Shashtri Nagar, Delhi-110052 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aasps8033M Assessee By : Sh. Ramesh Goel, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.11.2017 Order This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Legal Heir Of The Deceased Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.04.2017 Of Ld. Cit(A)-17, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Ramesh Goel, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148

…aterial produced, it was not possible for the Assessing Officer to conclude that he had reason to believe that income had escaped assessment.” 8. Similarly, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Signature Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO and Anr. (2011) 338 ITR 51 (supra) held as under: “Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is wide but not plenary. The Assessing Officer must have "reason to believe" that an income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. This is mandatory and the "reasons to believe" are required to be recorded in writing by the Assessing Officer. Sufficiency of reasons is not a matter…

Anil Bihani, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 24(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 20/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Anil Bihani Acit-24(1), 12, Kakkad Comm. 6Th Floor, Lalbaug, Vs. Complex, Below Sun- Mumbai. N-Sheel, J.B. Nagar, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400059. Pan No. Aadpb1860C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rajat Mittal, Dr Date Of Hearing : 21/08/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 03/11/2017

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal, DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the reopening made by the AO. 4. Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in PCIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. 395 ITR 677 and Signature Hotels Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 338 ITR 51. Also he relies on the order of the ITAT, Mumbai in (i) Ajay J Doshi vs. ITO in ITA No. 121/Mum/2015 dated 31.05.2017, (ii) ITO vs. Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. in ITA No. 5766/Mum/2013 and 5567/Mum/2013 dated 10.04.2015. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. DR supports the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused th…

M/S. Metro Decorative Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 450/DEL/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri K.N. Charry

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

…on by either side. In so far as the challenge of the assessee as to the legality and validity of the reopening is concerned, assessee is placing reliance on the decisions reported in G&G Pharma India Ltd. (Del. High Court) (supra), N.C. Cables Ltd. vs. ITO 338 ITR 51 (Del), Sarthak Securities Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO (2010) 195 Taxman 262 (Del), CIT vs. Kamdhenu Steels & Alloys Ltd. (2012) 119 Taxmann.com 26 (Del.). As could be seen from these decisions, it is consistently held that the reopening based on the information furnished by the Directorate of Investigation and the AO without making any further Inves…

K.P. International, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed”

ITA 2246/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Diva Singhassessment Year: 2007-08 K.P. International Ito F-47, Desh Bandhu Gupta Vs. Ward-51(4) Market, Karol Bagh, New New Delhi Delhi

Section 148

…g attention to the arguments recorded in para 4 of the aforesaid decision, it was submitted that reliance had been placed on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Signature Hotels P. Ltd vs. Income Tax Officer and Another, reported in (2011) 338 ITR 51 (Delhi). Reliance is also placed upon the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sarthak Securities Co. P. Ltd. vs. ITO, reported in (2010) 329 ITR 110 (Del.). Further reliance is also placed in the upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT vs. G & G Pharma Ltd. in ITA No. 545/2015 and the decision of IT…

ACIT 13(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Vaman International P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1506/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.1040 & 1041/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: (2007-08 & 2008-09) M/S. Vaman International Pvt. Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. 119, 1St Floor, Durian बिधम/ Income Tax-13(3)(2), Industrial Estate, Goregaon Mumbai. Vs. Mulund Link Road, Goregaon East, Mumbai-400063. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabcv5464F (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta &For Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…drive home his aforesaid contention relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Signature Hotels P a g e | 11 ITA Nos. 1040-1042 &1506/Mum/2017 Vaman International & M/s Tangent furniture Vs. DCIT P. Ltd. Vs. ITO and Anr. (2011) 338 ITR 51 (Del). The Ld. A.R. further assailed the validity of the reassessment framed by the A.O on the ground that as in the case of the assessee company an assessment u/s 143(3) for the year under consideration, viz. A.Y. 2007-08 had already been framed on 31.12.2008, therefore, as per the mandate of law contemplated in the proviso to Sec. 151(1) (as was…

Tangent Furniture P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 13(3)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1042/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta &For Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Vaman International P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 13(3)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1040/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta &For Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Smt. Taruna Verma, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2833/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishismt Taruna Verma, Vs. Ito, A-340, Shastri Nagar, Delhi Ward-19(3), Pan:Akfpv1950P New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anshu Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…ented by affidavits. The imposition of that requirement ensures against an arbitrary exercise of powers under section 148." (EMPHASIS SUPPLIED) b. The above case has been followed by the Delhi High Court in the case of Signature Hotels (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [2011] 338 ITR 51. c. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar [2004] 190 CTR 166 (Bombay) whereby following has been held: "20. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer nowhere state that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material fa…

M/S. Meditronics India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 6251/DEL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri L. P. Sahui. T. Appeal No. 6251/Del/2012 Assessment Year : 2004-2005. M/S. Meditronics India Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer, 41, Pocket–Ii, Jasola, Vs. Ward : 6 (3), D E L H I – 110 025. New Delhi. Pan : Aadcm 3622 Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Adv.; &For Respondent: Shri Gudrun Nehra, Sr. D. R

Section 147

…). ITO vs. Mrs. Maya Gupta (ii) (ITA No. 3435/Del/2013 dated 13.12.2013) M/s Laureate Educational Vs. Income Tax Officer (iii) (ITA No.l945/Del/2012 Assessment Year : 2004-05 dated 31.12.2013) Signature Hotels (P.) Ltd. vs. Income-tax Officer (iv) reported in 338 ITR 51 Sarthak Securities Co.P.Ltd. Vs. ITO (v) 8 I. T. Appeal No. 6251/Del/2012 Assessment Year : 2004-2005. reported in [2010] 329 ITR 110 (Delhi) CIT vs. Kamadhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. [2012] (vi) 206 Taxman 254 (DELHI) CIT vs. Atul Jain, (vii) 299 ITR 383 (Del); (viii) CIT vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd., 325 ITR 285 (Del) 2. Proceedings under section 1…

Shri Mohan Chandra Dalakoti, New Delhi vs. ITO, Haldwani

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 297/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 297/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Mohan Chandra Dalakoti, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O Sandeep Sapra, Advocate, C- Ward-1(2), 763, New Friends Colony, Haldwani New Delhi-110025 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acxpd1990R Assessee By : Sh. Sandeep Sapra, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.06.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2017 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 04.10.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A), Haldwani.

For Appellant: Sh. Sandeep Sapra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…g enquiries. Therefore, the reopening was not valid. 11 Mohan Chandra Dalakoti 10. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " Pr. CIT Vs Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. in ITA 692/2016 order dated 26.05.2017 (Del.) " Signature Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO 338 ITR 51 (Del.) " CIT Vs SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. 325 ITR 285 (Del) " Krown Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT 375 ITR 460 (Del.) " Rustagi Engineering Udyog Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT 382 ITR 443 (Del.) " Sheo Nath Singh Vs ACIT 82 ITR 147 (SC) 11. In his rival submissions the ld. DR supported the orders of the authorities below and further submitted that the income of t…

M/S Grand Slam Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for statistical purpose

ITA 1791/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2003-04

Section 131Section 13aSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…nsel relied on the following decisions: 1. Decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Atul Jain and Smt. Vinita Jain, (2008) 299 ITR 383 (Delhi). 2. Decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Signature Hotels Private Limited, (2011) 338 ITR 51 (Delhi). 3. Decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court SFIL Stock Broking Ltd., (2010) 325 ITR 285 (Delhi). 4. Decision of the ITAT, Delhi bench –B, in the case of ACIT Vs. Sh.Devesh Kumar in ITA No. 2068/Del/2010 for AY 2004-05, 6 5. Decision of the ITAT Delhi bench-D in the case of on Exim Private Limited, reported in (2013) 40 taxmann.com 133 (D…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax--6 vs. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd

ITA/692/2016HC Delhi26 May 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 139Section 143Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 260ASection 68

…me had escaped assessment. This tangible material was in the form of an investigation report of the DIT(I) which was mentioned in the reasons for re-opening the assessment. Relying on the decisions in Signature Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer (2011) 338 ITR 51 (Del), AGR Investment Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (2011) 336 ITR 146 (Del.), AG Holding v. Income Tax Officer (2013) 352 ITR 364 (Del), Mr. Chaudhary submitted that the adequacy or sufficiency of the material of the basis on which the belief was formed by the AO for re- opening of the assessment could not be enquired into at…

Sukumar Rajagopalan, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 718/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 718/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Ita No. 719/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Sukumar Rajagopalan, Vs Acit, 1516, 2Nd Floor, Kotla Mubarakpur, Circle-26(1), New Delhi-110024 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagpr6405G Assessee By : Sh. Tarun Rohatgi, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.05.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.05.2017 Order These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Dated 26.11.2015 Of Ld. Cit(A)-15, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Rohatgi, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 148Section 68

…materials in order to have reasons to believe that the income of the Assessee escaped assessment is missing in the present case.” 6. Similar is the position of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Signatures Hotels Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO and Another (2011) 338 ITR 51 (Del), Madhu Khosla vs. CIT 368 ITR 165 (Del) and CIT vs. Insecticides (India) Pvt. Ltd., 357 ITR 330 (Del). 7. Respectfully following the propositions laid down in all these cases, I hold that the reopening in both these assessment years are bad in law as there is no application of mind by the AO.” ITA Nos. 718 & 719/Del/2016 7 Sukumar Rajagop…

S. Jagjit Singh L/H of Late Sh. Joginder Singh Prop., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4722/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 4722/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 S. Jagjit Singh, Vs Income Tax Officer, L/H Of Late Sh. Joginder Singh, Ward-51(1), Prop. M/S Super Industires, A- New Delhi 515/1`, Shashtri Nagr, Delhi-110052 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aasps8033M Assessee By : Sh. Ramesh Goyal, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.05.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.05.2017 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 04.07.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A)-17, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Ramesh Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. DR

…aterial produced, it was not possible for the Assessing Officer to conclude that he had reason to believe that income had escaped assessment.” 8. Similarly, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Signature Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO and Anr. (2011) 338 ITR 51 (supra) held as under: 5 S. Jagjit Singh “Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is wide but not plenary. The Assessing Officer must have "reason to believe" that an income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. This is mandatory and the "reasons to believe" are required to be recorded in writing by the Assessing Officer. Sufficiency of reas…