ACIT v. Dhariya Construction Co.

328 ITR 515Supreme Court of India2010#916 most cited

What is ACIT v. Dhariya Construction Co. authority for?

Reassessment under Section 147 requires the Assessing Officer to apply an independent mind to the information; a vague report or a District Valuation Officer's opinion alone is not sufficient information to form the belief that income has escaped assessment.

116

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Also referred to as

ACIT v. Dhariya Construction Co. · Dhariya Construction · Section 147 · Section 148 · reopening of assessment · independent application of mind · vague report · DVO opinion · information for reassessment · formation of belief · escaped income · sanction under section 151

Also reported as

197 Taxmann 202

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 143(3)Section 151Section 142(1)Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

amp expendituretrue and full disclosuresection 92basanction under section 151fresh tangible materialmaterial facts necessary for assessmenttransfer pricing orderfirst proviso to section 147section 148(2)sanctioning authoritykelvinatorsection 151(1)

Judgments citing ACIT v. Dhariya Construction Co.

Uni Design Jewellery India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

In the result , appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 1159/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1158 & 1159/Mum/2018 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13) बिाम/ Uni Design Jewellery India Dcit-Central Circle 1(2) Private Ltd., Mumbai. Plot No. 3, V. Uni Design House, Cepz Wicel, Opp. Seepz Main Gate, Andheri(E), Mumbai-400093 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacu3940J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Rakesh Mohan Revenue By: Shri. Rejeev Gubgodra (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 03.04.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: These Two Appeals, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 1158 & 1159/Mum/2018 For Assessment Year(S) 2011-12 & 2012- 13 Respectively, Are Directed Against Separate Appellate Order(S) Both Dated 18.12.2017 In Appeal Number(S) Cit(A)-47/Ap.11663/16-17 & Cit(A)-47/Ap.11664/16-17 Respectively, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2011-12 & 2012-13 Respectively, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Separate Assessment Order(S) Both Dated 31.10.2016 Passed By

For Appellant: Shri. Rakesh MohanFor Respondent: Shri. Rejeev Gubgodra (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “F” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1158 & 1159/Mum/2018 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12 and 2012-13) बिाम/ Uni Design Jewellery India DCIT-Central Circle 1(2) Private Ltd., Mumbai. Plot No. 3, v. Uni Design House, CEPZ WICEL, Opp. SEEPZ Main Gate, Andheri(E), Mumbai-400093 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN: AAACU3940J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee by: Shri. Rakesh Mohan Revenue by: Shri. Rejeev Gubgodra (DR) सुनवाई की तार…

Uni Design Jewellery India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

In the result , appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 1158/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1158 & 1159/Mum/2018 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13) बिाम/ Uni Design Jewellery India Dcit-Central Circle 1(2) Private Ltd., Mumbai. Plot No. 3, V. Uni Design House, Cepz Wicel, Opp. Seepz Main Gate, Andheri(E), Mumbai-400093 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacu3940J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Rakesh Mohan Revenue By: Shri. Rejeev Gubgodra (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 03.04.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: These Two Appeals, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 1158 & 1159/Mum/2018 For Assessment Year(S) 2011-12 & 2012- 13 Respectively, Are Directed Against Separate Appellate Order(S) Both Dated 18.12.2017 In Appeal Number(S) Cit(A)-47/Ap.11663/16-17 & Cit(A)-47/Ap.11664/16-17 Respectively, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2011-12 & 2012-13 Respectively, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Separate Assessment Order(S) Both Dated 31.10.2016 Passed By

For Appellant: Shri. Rakesh MohanFor Respondent: Shri. Rejeev Gubgodra (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “F” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1158 & 1159/Mum/2018 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12 and 2012-13) बिाम/ Uni Design Jewellery India DCIT-Central Circle 1(2) Private Ltd., Mumbai. Plot No. 3, v. Uni Design House, CEPZ WICEL, Opp. SEEPZ Main Gate, Andheri(E), Mumbai-400093 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN: AAACU3940J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee by: Shri. Rakesh Mohan Revenue by: Shri. Rejeev Gubgodra (DR) सुनवाई की तार…

Grow More Ceramics Pvt. Ltd., Gandhinagar vs. The ACIT, Mehsana Circle, Mehsana

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2204/AHD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh)

For Appellant: Shri Parimal Singh Parmar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Sr. D.R
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH (BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA. Nos: 2204 & 2205/AHD/2017 (Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11) Grow More Ceramics Pvt. V/S ACIT, Mehsana Circle, Ltd. 591, Kotha Ta. Kalol, Mehsana Gandhinagar (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AABCG8742P Appellant by : Shri Parimal Singh Parmar, AR Respondent by : Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Sr. D.R. (आदेश)/ORDER Date of hearing : 09 -05-2019 Date of Pronouncement : 21-05-2019 PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. These two appeals filed by the Assessee are…

Sunil Kumar Jain, Damoh vs. Income Tax Office, Damoh

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 176/JAB/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur04 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Moughale, D.R
Section 147Section 148

…raised are as follows:- 1. Considering the fact that the reassessment proceeding was initiated by the Id AO solely on the basis of valuation report of Id DVO hence in view of Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of ACIT v Dhariya Construction Co. (2010) 328 ITR 515, the Id CIT (A) ought to have held that the reopening of the assessment is bad in law and consequently the reassessment order dated 23/12/2013 is also bad in law. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case the Id CIT (A) should have held that reopening of the assessment is bad in law. ITA No.175 & 176/JAB/2018 Page 2 of 4 3. Considering the…

Sunil Kumar Jain, Damoh vs. Income Tax Office, Damoh

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 175/JAB/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur04 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Moughale, D.R
Section 147Section 148

…raised are as follows:- 1. Considering the fact that the reassessment proceeding was initiated by the Id AO solely on the basis of valuation report of Id DVO hence in view of Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of ACIT v Dhariya Construction Co. (2010) 328 ITR 515, the Id CIT (A) ought to have held that the reopening of the assessment is bad in law and consequently the reassessment order dated 23/12/2013 is also bad in law. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case the Id CIT (A) should have held that reopening of the assessment is bad in law. ITA No.175 & 176/JAB/2018 Page 2 of 4 3. Considering the…

Concord Drugs Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result appeals of the assessee in all the years under consideration are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1901/HYD/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohana RaoFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH ‘B', HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sl.No. ITA No. AY Appellant Respondent 1 to 3 1901 to 2006-07 Concord Drugs Dy. 1903/Hyd/ to Ltd., Commissioner of 2017 2008-09 Hyderabad. Income-tax, Circle – 1(2), PAN – Hyderabad. AAACC8171D 4 to 6 1152/ to -do- Dy. Concord Drugs 1154Hyd/ Commissioner Ltd., Hyderabad. 2014 of Income-tax, Circle – 1(2), PAN – Hyderabad. AAACC8171D 7 to 9 SA Nos. Concord Drugs Dy. 81, 82 & -do- Ltd., Commissioner of 83/H/2018 Hyderabad. Income-tax, (in ITA Circle – 1(2),…

Dy.CIT, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad vs. M/S Concord Drugs Ltd., Hyderabad

In the result appeals of the assessee in all the years under consideration are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1154/HYD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohana RaoFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH ‘B', HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sl.No. ITA No. AY Appellant Respondent 1 to 3 1901 to 2006-07 Concord Drugs Dy. 1903/Hyd/ to Ltd., Commissioner of 2017 2008-09 Hyderabad. Income-tax, Circle – 1(2), PAN – Hyderabad. AAACC8171D 4 to 6 1152/ to -do- Dy. Concord Drugs 1154Hyd/ Commissioner Ltd., Hyderabad. 2014 of Income-tax, Circle – 1(2), PAN – Hyderabad. AAACC8171D 7 to 9 SA Nos. Concord Drugs Dy. 81, 82 & -do- Ltd., Commissioner of 83/H/2018 Hyderabad. Income-tax, (in ITA Circle – 1(2),…

Dy.CIT, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad vs. M/S Concord Drugs Ltd., Hyderabad

In the result appeals of the assessee in all the years under consideration are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1153/HYD/2014[2007]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2019

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohana RaoFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH ‘B', HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sl.No. ITA No. AY Appellant Respondent 1 to 3 1901 to 2006-07 Concord Drugs Dy. 1903/Hyd/ to Ltd., Commissioner of 2017 2008-09 Hyderabad. Income-tax, Circle – 1(2), PAN – Hyderabad. AAACC8171D 4 to 6 1152/ to -do- Dy. Concord Drugs 1154Hyd/ Commissioner Ltd., Hyderabad. 2014 of Income-tax, Circle – 1(2), PAN – Hyderabad. AAACC8171D 7 to 9 SA Nos. Concord Drugs Dy. 81, 82 & -do- Ltd., Commissioner of 83/H/2018 Hyderabad. Income-tax, (in ITA Circle – 1(2),…

Dy.CIT, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad vs. M/S Concord Drugs Ltd., Hyderabad

In the result appeals of the assessee in all the years under consideration are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1152/HYD/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohana RaoFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH ‘B', HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sl.No. ITA No. AY Appellant Respondent 1 to 3 1901 to 2006-07 Concord Drugs Dy. 1903/Hyd/ to Ltd., Commissioner of 2017 2008-09 Hyderabad. Income-tax, Circle – 1(2), PAN – Hyderabad. AAACC8171D 4 to 6 1152/ to -do- Dy. Concord Drugs 1154Hyd/ Commissioner Ltd., Hyderabad. 2014 of Income-tax, Circle – 1(2), PAN – Hyderabad. AAACC8171D 7 to 9 SA Nos. Concord Drugs Dy. 81, 82 & -do- Ltd., Commissioner of 83/H/2018 Hyderabad. Income-tax, (in ITA Circle – 1(2),…

M/S. Gdm Associates, Purba Medinipur vs. ITO, Ward 27(2), Haldia, Purba Medinipur

Appeal is allowed

ITA 592/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “B” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “B” KOLKATA Before Shri S.S.Godara, Judicial Member and Shri, M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member Assessment Year :2009-10 M/s GDM Associates V/s. Income Tax Officer Sonamui, Ward-27(2), Haldia Ramnagar,Kalindi, Dist. Talpukur, hajanchak, Purba Medinipur-721461 Purba Midnapore- [PAN No.AAIFG 9805 F] 721461 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant ShriRobin Choudhury, Addl. CIT-SR-DR ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 05-12-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 26-12-…

M/S. Topchem (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 2364/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2004-05 Topchem (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, 39/2068, Naiwala, Ward-16(3), 315, Dakha Chamber, New Delhi. Karol Bagh, New Delhi. Pan: Aaact5718R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Deepak Ostwal, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Naina Sain Kapil, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2018 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11Th March, 2013 Of The Cit(A)-19, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2004-05. 2. The Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company & Is Engaged In The Business Of Dealing In Organic & Inorganic Chemicals & Provide Services In Various Fields. It Filed Original Return Of Income On 29Th October, 2004 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,520/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) On 29Th February, 2005. Subsequently, The Assessing Officer Issued Notices U/S 148 Of The It Act For Reopening

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Ostwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Naina Sain Kapil, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 151

…” The Supreme Court concluded that it was not satisfied that the ITO had any material before him which could satisfy the requirements under Section 147 and therefore could not have issued notice under Section 148. 10. In ACIT v. Dhariya Construction Co.(2010)328 ITR 515 the Supreme Court in a short order held as under: “Having examined the record, we find that in this case, the Department sought reopening of the assessment based on the opinion given by the DVO. Opinion of the DVO per se is not an information for the purposes of reopening assessment under s. 147 of the IT Act, 1961. The AO has to apply his mind…

Mamta Dinesh, Bulandshahr vs. DCIT, Circle- 3(1), Bulandshahr

In the result, appeal of Assessee is allowed

ITA 1709/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Shri Deepesh Garg, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

…ingh Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Bulandshahr.” 4.1. Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the issue is covered in favour of assessee by the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Dhariya Construction Co. (2010) 328 ITR 515 (SC) in which it was held 5 ITA.No.1709/Del./2018 Dr. Mamta Dinesh, Bulandshahr. . that “Opinion of the DVO per se is not sufficient information for the purposes of reopening of the assessment under section 147 of the I.T. Act.” He has also relied upon Judgment of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of ITO vs. Santosh Kumar Dalmia (1994) 208…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jrd Stock Brokers (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stand allowed whereas

ITA 252/DEL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. G.D. Agrawal & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavaito Jrd Stock Brokers (P) Ward-4(2), Room No. 413A, Ltd. C.R.Building, I.P.Estate 4852/24, First Floor, New Delhi Ansari Road, Darya Ganj Vs. New Delhi Pan : Aabcj0701D Pan : (Appellant) (Respondent) Jrd Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. Ito 4852/24, First Floor, Ward-4(2), Room No. Ansari Road, Darya Ganj 413A, New Delhi C.R.Building, I.P.Estate Vs. Pan : Aabcj0701D New Delhi Pan : (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. R.S.Singhvi, Sh. Satyajeet Goel, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Jain, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

….” The Supreme Court concluded that it was not satisfied that the ITO had any material before him which could satisfy the requirements under Section 147 and therefore could not have issued notice under Section 148. 10. In ACIT v. Dhariya Construction Co.(2010)328 ITR 515 the Supreme Court in a short order held as under: “Having examined the record, we find that in this case, the Department sought reopening of the assessment based on the opinion given by the DVO. Opinion of the DVO per se is not an information for the purposes of reopening assessment under s. 147 of the IT Act, 1961. The AO has to apply his mind t…

M/S. Jrd Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stand allowed whereas

ITA 1002/DEL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. G.D. Agrawal & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavaito Jrd Stock Brokers (P) Ward-4(2), Room No. 413A, Ltd. C.R.Building, I.P.Estate 4852/24, First Floor, New Delhi Ansari Road, Darya Ganj Vs. New Delhi Pan : Aabcj0701D Pan : (Appellant) (Respondent) Jrd Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. Ito 4852/24, First Floor, Ward-4(2), Room No. Ansari Road, Darya Ganj 413A, New Delhi C.R.Building, I.P.Estate Vs. Pan : Aabcj0701D New Delhi Pan : (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. R.S.Singhvi, Sh. Satyajeet Goel, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Jain, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

….” The Supreme Court concluded that it was not satisfied that the ITO had any material before him which could satisfy the requirements under Section 147 and therefore could not have issued notice under Section 148. 10. In ACIT v. Dhariya Construction Co.(2010)328 ITR 515 the Supreme Court in a short order held as under: “Having examined the record, we find that in this case, the Department sought reopening of the assessment based on the opinion given by the DVO. Opinion of the DVO per se is not an information for the purposes of reopening assessment under s. 147 of the IT Act, 1961. The AO has to apply his mind t…

Late Smt. Giriraj Kaur L/H Sri Ravinder Gill, Muzaffarnagar vs. ITO, Muzaffarnagar

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 931/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishilate Smt. Giriraj Kaur, Vs. Ito, C/O. L/H Sri Ravinder Gill, Ward-1(2), 861, Mangal Bhawan, Muzaffarnagar Bhopa Road, Muzaffarnagar Pan: Dtppk0005J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Smt Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Singh, CIT Dr
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 55A

…which is impermissible u/s 263 of the Act. CIT was required to arrive at a definite conclusion as is held by the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. International Travel House Ltd. Even otherwise Hon‟ble Supreme Court in ACIT v. Dharia Construction Co., (2010) 328 ITR 515 have held that the opinion of DVO is not an information on the basis of which the assessment can be reopened. q) Lack of inquiry and inadequate inquiry It is the lack of inquiry on the part of Assessing Officer which confers jurisdiction on the CIT to assume jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. Following cases are relied upon : (2010) 320 ITR 674 (De…

Sh. Arun Mundray Saini, Chandigarh vs. Dy. Director of Income Tax, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 389/CHANDI/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Seghal, Adv
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…‘Ms. Rajinder Kaur Vs. ACIT’ (ITA No. 765/Chd/2015) which has been placed at pages 15 to 34 of the paper book wherein the Tribunal in the case of Co-owner, while relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Dhariya Construction Co.’ 328 ITR 515 (SC) held that the reopening cannot be made merely on the basis of the valuation report of the DVO. Since the facts are identical and relating to the same transaction of the sale of property, hence, respectfully following the above referred to decisions of the Tribunal in the case of co-owners, we hold that the reopening in this case was also…

ITO, Baran vs. Ganpati Plaza, Alwar

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year

ITA 545/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Feb 2018AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Satish Gupta (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. A.S. Nehra (JCIT)
Section 131Section 133Section 133ASection 142Section 147Section 148

…for initiation of reassessment proceedings. Further, the AO has framed the assessment on the basis of the opinion of the DVO which cannot be the basis for reopening u/s 147 as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of ACIT vs. Dhariya Construction Company 328 ITR 515. 4. On the other hand, ld. DR has submitted that the assessee is admittedly not maintaining the regular books of accounts and further there was no return of income filed by the assessee for the year under consideration. During the survey proceedings the assessee has estimated the investment made in construction of the building namely Ganpati Sh…

Ganpati Plaza, Jaipur vs. ITO, Behror

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year

ITA 467/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Feb 2018AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Satish Gupta (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. A.S. Nehra (JCIT)
Section 131Section 133Section 133ASection 142Section 147Section 148

…for initiation of reassessment proceedings. Further, the AO has framed the assessment on the basis of the opinion of the DVO which cannot be the basis for reopening u/s 147 as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of ACIT vs. Dhariya Construction Company 328 ITR 515. 4. On the other hand, ld. DR has submitted that the assessee is admittedly not maintaining the regular books of accounts and further there was no return of income filed by the assessee for the year under consideration. During the survey proceedings the assessee has estimated the investment made in construction of the building namely Ganpati Sh…

Ganpati Plaza, Jaipur vs. ITO, Behror

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year

ITA 466/JPR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Feb 2018AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Satish Gupta (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. A.S. Nehra (JCIT)
Section 131Section 133Section 133ASection 142Section 147Section 148

…for initiation of reassessment proceedings. Further, the AO has framed the assessment on the basis of the opinion of the DVO which cannot be the basis for reopening u/s 147 as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of ACIT vs. Dhariya Construction Company 328 ITR 515. 4. On the other hand, ld. DR has submitted that the assessee is admittedly not maintaining the regular books of accounts and further there was no return of income filed by the assessee for the year under consideration. During the survey proceedings the assessee has estimated the investment made in construction of the building namely Ganpati Sh…

Shri Vibhor Singhal, Muzaffarnagar vs. ITO, Muzaffarnagar

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 2045/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.P. Jainassessment Year 2008-09 Vibhor Singhal Vs. Ito C/O. Dinesh Mohan, Ward-2(4) Advocate, 2- Anand Vihar, Muzaffarnagar Lane No. 1, Circular Road Muzaffarnagar

For Appellant: Sh. Ankit Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148

…The Supreme Court concluded that it was not satisfied that the ITO had any material before him which could satisfy the requirements under Section 147 and therefore could not have issued notice under Section 148. 10. In ACIT vs. Dhariya Construction Co. (2010)328 ITR 515 the Supreme Court in a short order held as under: “Having examined the record, we find that in this case, the Department sought reopening of the assessment based on the opinion given by the DVO. Opinion of the DVO per se is not an information for the purposes of reopening assessment under s. 147 of the IT Act, 1961. The AO has to apply his mind t…