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.

Marathon Finlease Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed on legal grounds

ITA 4029/DEL/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Feb 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Sri G.D. Agarwal, Hon’Blesri C.M.Garg

For Appellant: Sh. V.K.Tulsiyan, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. P.Dam Kanunjna, 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 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…

Sh. Suresh M. Bajaj, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal grounds

ITA 7/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Feb 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Sri G.D. Agarwal, Hon’Blesri C.M.Gargita No. 7/Del./2013 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: Sh. P.C.Yadav, J.MFor Respondent: Sh. Anima Barnwal, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

…j 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…

ACIT, Hisar vs. M/S. Prakash Industries Ltd., Hisar

In the result the Appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 6230/DEL/2013[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Feb 2016AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 1996-97 Acit, Vs Prakash Industries Ltd., Circle Hisar, Delhi Road, Hisar. Hisar. (Pan: Aabcp6765H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr. Dr Respondent By: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Adv.

For Appellant: Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AY: 1996-97 ACIT, vs Prakash Industries Ltd., Circle Hisar, Delhi Road, Hisar. Hisar. (PAN: AABCP6765H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr. DR Respondent by: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Adv. ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JM This Department’s appeal has been filed against the order dated 23.9.2013 passed by the ld. CIT (A), Rohtak, deleting the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). 2. Bri…

Fibres & Fabrics International P Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circel-11(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 1352/BANG/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Feb 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Fibres & Fabrics International Pvt. Ltd. No.21, E-1, 2Nd Phase, Peenya Industrial Area, Bangalore-560058. … Appellant Pan: Aaacf 6841 M Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(3), Bangalore. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 147Section 253Section 32(1)(ii)

…in a case where the re-assessment was based on the report of a District Valuation Officer. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the opinion cannot be a basis for re-assessment proceedings and it has to be based on the facts [ACIT vs. Dhariya Construction Co. (328 ITR 515)]. Therefore, this reason, as recorded by the AO, cannot form the basis for the reason to believe that income escaped assessment. Page 19 of 37 (b) and (c): On perusal of the queries posed to the Managing Director (MD) of the assessee-company, during the course of survey proceedings, we find that the AO was trying to find out from the MD about th…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Saidan Kapoor, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 4496/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 4496/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Vs Sh. Saidan Kapoor, J-6, 1St Floor, Ndse, Part-I, Circle-32(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ajnpk3289R Assessee By : Sh. Om Prakash, Adv. Revenue By : Smt. Anima Barnwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.01.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. Om Prakash, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Anima Barnwal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 55A

…was given by the AO for escapement of the income, therefore, the ld. CIT(A) rightly quashed the reassessment framed by the AO. The reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT Vs Dhariya Construction Company reported at 328 ITR 515. 7. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the reopening was done by the AO only on the basis of the valuation report received from the office of the DVO. On a similar issue the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ACIT V…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Visisth Chay Vyapar Ltd

ITA - 1109 / 2010HC Delhi03 Dec 2015
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)

…at income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year. Unless the requirements of cl. (a) or cl. (b) of S. 147 are satisfied, the ITO has no jurisdiction to issue a notice under S. 148.” 25. In ACIT v. Dhariya Construction Co.(2010)328 ITR 515 (SC) 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 ap…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Vishsht Chay Vyapar Ltd

ITA - 1108 / 2010HC Delhi03 Dec 2015
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)

…at income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year. Unless the requirements of cl. (a) or cl. (b) of S. 147 are satisfied, the ITO has no jurisdiction to issue a notice under S. 148.” 25. In ACIT v. Dhariya Construction Co.(2010)328 ITR 515 (SC) 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 ap…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Vishishth Chay Vyapar Ltd

ITA/1108/2010HC Delhi03 Dec 2015
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)

…at income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year. Unless the requirements of cl. (a) or cl. (b) of S. 147 are satisfied, the ITO has no jurisdiction to issue a notice under S. 148.” 25. In ACIT v. Dhariya Construction Co.(2010)328 ITR 515 (SC) 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 ap…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Vishishth Chay Vyapar Ltd

ITA/1109/2010HC Delhi03 Dec 2015
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)

…at income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year. Unless the requirements of cl. (a) or cl. (b) of S. 147 are satisfied, the ITO has no jurisdiction to issue a notice under S. 148.” 25. In ACIT v. Dhariya Construction Co.(2010)328 ITR 515 (SC) 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 ap…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Rajat Export Import P. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the appeal filed by the Department is dismissed

ITA 2820/DEL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2015AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Yadav, Advocate
Section 143(1)Section 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 v. Dhariya Construction Co.(2010)328 ITR 515 the Supreme Court in a short order held as under: 6 ITO vs. Rajat Export Import P. Ltd. “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 A…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Roopin Capital P. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the CO filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2814/DEL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2015AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri R. Santhanam, Advocate &
Section 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 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…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Roopali Marketing Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the CO filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2813/DEL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2015AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri R. Santhanam, Advocate &
Section 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 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. 6 & CO No. 142/Del/2013 147 of the IT Act, 1961. Th…

ITO 12(3)4, Mumbai vs. Urmila Construciton Company, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4634/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2005-06 Ito-12(3)(4), M/S Urmila Construction Room No.123, 1St Floor, Company, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road 422, Nagindas Master Road, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400023 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaafu0226C Shri B.Yadagiri -Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Vijay C. Kothari

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 69

…d in the original assessment order dated 31/12/2007. It was contended that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), therefore, is not justified in its decision. 2.1. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the assessee place reliance upon the decision in 328 ITR 515 (SC) by contending that in original assessment order, the Assessing Officer has made reference to the DVO and the report from the DVO was not received, therefore, it was contended whether section 147 of the Act is a correct provision which can be invoked. It was asserted that the Assessing Officer has already formed a belief that value shown by t…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-4 vs. G & G Pharma India Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/545/2015HC Delhi08 Oct 2015
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 260A

…e 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…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-4 vs. G & G Pharma India Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA-545/2015HC Delhi08 Oct 2015
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 260A

…e 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…

M/S Sysarris Software Pvt Ltd vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

WA/3039/2012HC Karnataka07 Jan 2013

Bench: A Learned Single Judge Of This Court By Filing A Writ Petition On The Premise That There Was No Tangible Or Credible Information With The Assessing Officer Before Issuing The Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act.

Section 148Section 4

…IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE Dated this the 7th day of January, 2013 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE D V SHYLENDRA KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B MANOHAR Writ Appeal No. 3039 of 2012 (T-IT) BETWEEN: M/S SYSARRIS SOFTWARE PVT. LTD., #19/2, 15TH CROSS, DOLLARS COLONY, J P NAGAR 4TH PHASE, BENGALURU – 560 078 (REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI AJAYSIMHA A S/O SRI K ANANTHASWAMI AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS) … APPELLANT [By Sri Chythanya K K, Adv.] AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE – 12(3) BENGALURU 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER…