Amar Nath Agarwal v. CIT

371 ITR 183High Court2015#9031 most cited

What is Amar Nath Agarwal v. CIT authority for?

A notice under Section 148 issued after four years but before six years of the relevant assessment year is only valid if the escaped income amounts to or is likely to amount to Rs. 1 lakh or more for that year, as per Section 149(1)(b).

12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2022.

Also referred to as

Amar Nath Agarwal v CIT · Section 148 · Section 149 · escaped income · time limit for notice · reassessment · Allahabad High Court

Judgments citing Amar Nath Agarwal v. CIT

D.C.I.T., Circle-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S G.K.Ispat Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross objection of the different assessees are also dismissed

ITA 2408/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar] "ी संजय गग" "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य के सम"

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘सी’, कोलकाता [Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member ] "ी संजय गग" "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य के सम" I.T.A. No. 2408/Kol/2019 Assessment Year : 2011-12 DCIT, Circle-6(1), Kolkata Vs. M/s G.K. Ispat Pvt. Ltd. (PAN: AACCG 5067 A) Appellant / (अपीलाथ") Respondent / (!"यथ") C.O. No. 55/Kol/2019 (Arising out of I.T.A. No. 2408/Kol/2019) Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/s G.K. Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Circle-6(1), Kolkata (PAN: AACCG 5067 A) Cross-objector Respondent / (!"यथ"…

DCIT, Circle - 6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Gaurav Rose Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross objection of the different assessees are also dismissed

ITA 2407/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar] "ी संजय गग" "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य के सम"

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘सी’, कोलकाता [Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member ] "ी संजय गग" "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य के सम" I.T.A. No. 2408/Kol/2019 Assessment Year : 2011-12 DCIT, Circle-6(1), Kolkata Vs. M/s G.K. Ispat Pvt. Ltd. (PAN: AACCG 5067 A) Appellant / (अपीलाथ") Respondent / (!"यथ") C.O. No. 55/Kol/2019 (Arising out of I.T.A. No. 2408/Kol/2019) Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/s G.K. Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Circle-6(1), Kolkata (PAN: AACCG 5067 A) Cross-objector Respondent / (!"यथ"…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-Dimapur, Dimapur vs. M/S. Parsuram Sanwarmal Agarwalla & Sons, Dimapur

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 143/GTY/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati25 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151

…e u/s. 148 of the Act and in such an event, the AO does not enjoy jurisdiction to have validly reopen the assessment. And it is noted that this issue is no longer res integra and the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Amar Nath Agarwal Vs. CIT (2015) 371 ITR 183 (All) has held as under: “Section 149 provides a time limit for issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Act and, if a notice after four years but before six years is issued, the same could only be issued if the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to Rs.1 lac or more for that year. For facility…

Income Tax Officerm Ward-Dimapur, Dimapur vs. Shri Bhama Agarwalla, Dimapur

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 142/GTY/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati25 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151

…e u/s. 148 of the Act and in such an event, the AO does not enjoy jurisdiction to have validly reopen the assessment. And it is noted that this issue is no longer res integra and the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Amar Nath Agarwal Vs. CIT (2015) 371 ITR 183 (All) has held as under: “Section 149 provides a time limit for issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Act and, if a notice after four years but before six years is issued, the same could only be issued if the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to Rs.1 lac or more for that year. For facility…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-Dimapur, Dimapur vs. Shri Sanwarmall Agarwalla, Dimapur

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 141/GTY/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati25 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151

…e u/s. 148 of the Act and in such an event, the AO does not enjoy jurisdiction to have validly reopen the assessment. And it is noted that this issue is no longer res integra and the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Amar Nath Agarwal Vs. CIT (2015) 371 ITR 183 (All) has held as under: “Section 149 provides a time limit for issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Act and, if a notice after four years but before six years is issued, the same could only be issued if the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to Rs.1 lac or more for that year. For facility…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-Dimapur, Dimapur vs. Shri Ankit Agarwalla, Dimapur

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 140/GTY/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati25 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151

…e u/s. 148 of the Act and in such an event, the AO does not enjoy jurisdiction to have validly reopen the assessment. And it is noted that this issue is no longer res integra and the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Amar Nath Agarwal Vs. CIT (2015) 371 ITR 183 (All) has held as under: “Section 149 provides a time limit for issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Act and, if a notice after four years but before six years is issued, the same could only be issued if the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to Rs.1 lac or more for that year. For facility…

Ritesh K.Agarwal, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle- 3(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 3271/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri S.L. JainFor Respondent: Smt. Jyothilakshmi Nayak
Section 133ASection 147Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80I

…assessee in the return of income. Therefore, virtually, there is no escapement of income requiring re–assessment. In support of such submissions, the learned Authorised Representative relied upon the following decisions:– i) Amar Nath Agarwal v/s CIT, [2015] 371 ITR 183 (All.); ii) CIT v/s Ruchira Papers Ltd., [2013] 212 Taxman 009 (HP); iii) Dulraj U. Jain v/s ACIT & Ors, [2018] 102 CCH 198 (Bom.); 4 Shri Ritesh K. Agarwal iv) Smt. Usha Agarwal v/s ITO, ITA no.167/Agra/2018, dated 19.06.2018; and v) Motto Tiles Pvt. Ltd. v/s ACIT, [2016] 386 ITR 280 (Guj.). 5. The learned Departmental Representative submitte…

Smt. Nirmala Nigam, Kanpur vs. Income Tax Officer-3(5), Kanpur

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 703/LKW/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2009-10 Smt. Nirmala Nigam V. Income Tax Officer 3(5) 104/102, P. Road Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Afcpn4993C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri C. K. Singh, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 20 02 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 22 02 2019

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri C. K. Singh, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 148Section 149(1)(b)

…asons and the entire reassessment proceedings are invalid. In this regard, the ld. A.R. of the assessee has placed reliance on the following decisions:- (i) Mahesh Kumar Gupta vs. CIT and Another, 363 ITR 300 (Alld.). (ii) Amar Nath Agarwal vs. CIT & Another, 371 ITR 183 (Alld.) (iii) Smt. Ushal Agarwal vs. ITO, order (CLPB: 162-185) 19/6/2018, passed by the ITAT (SMC), Agra, in ITA No.167/Lko/2018, for assessment year 2007-08. 4. The ld. D.R., on the other hand, has contended that since this objection was not raised before the Assessing Officer by the assessee, she cannot do so now. 5. Heard. Apropos ld. D.R.’s…

Shri Bhatkal Ramarao Prakash, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-5(2)(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2692/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jan 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri H.R. Suresh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Suryawamshi, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 2Section 54F

…sessee got possession of the property under lease-cum-sale agreement was accepted by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court. Similar decisions were rendered by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Smt.Rama Rani Kalia 358 ITR 499 (All) & Amar Nath Agarwal 371 ITR 183 (All). 13. We also find support for the aforesaid conclusions from another decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs A Suresh Rao 223 Taxmann 228 (Kar) wherein similar issue was considered and wherein the significance of the expression ‘held’ used by the legislature has been analysed and explained at length. Hon’ble High…

Late Shri Mohan Chandra Dalakoti, Haldwani vs. ITO, Ward- 1(2), Haldwani

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 3030/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhua.Y. : 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Sandeep Sapra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Pradeep Kumar Meel, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER A.Y. : 2008-09 LATE SHRI MOHAN CHANDRA DALAKOTI, VS. ITO, WARD 1(2) LEGAL HEIR SMT. JANKI DALAKOTI, HALDWANI C/O SANDEEP SAPRA, ADVOCATE, C-763, NEW FRIENDS COLONY, NEW DELHI – 110 025 (PAN: ACXPD1990R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Sandeep Sapra, Adv. Department by : Sh. Pradeep Kumar Meel, Sr. DR. O R D E R This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the Order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Haldwani dated 31.1.2018 pertaining to assessment year 2008-09 on the following…

Usha Agarwal, Agra vs. ITO 4(4), Agra

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 167/AGR/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 50C

…, where the AO, while recording the reasons, did not specify the quantum of income alleged to have escaped assessment; and that the Agra Bench, following the Judgment of ‘Mahesh Kumar Gupta Vs. CIT’, 363 ITR 300 (All.) (supra) and ‘Amar Nath Agarwal Vs. CIT’, 371 ITR 183 (All), has held the similar notice under section 148 to be null and void-ab-intio. 9. The ld. DR, on his part, has objected that no return of income was filed and therefore, the AO correctly formed his belief of escapement of income. The ld. DR also objects that no objections were raised by the assessee before the AO challenging the initiation o…

Padmini Chand, Hyderabad, Secunderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 1620/HYD/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Apr 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devismt. Padmini Chand Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax, Circle 6(1) Pan: Aaipc 2110 R Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Smt. Rajini Chand Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax, Circle 6(1) Pan: Aaipc 2105 J Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri Rama Krishna Bandi, DR
Section 147Section 148

…ective Officers. He placed reliance upon the following decisions in support of his arguments on the validity of the re- assessment proceedings: i) Hon'ble ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT in the case of Amar Nath Agrawal Versus Commissioner of Income Tax & Another [2015] 371 ITR 183 (All.) ii) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator India 320 ITR 561 (S.C) 9. He further submitted that while the assessee’s did not file their returns of income, they have filed the returns in response to the notice u/s 148 on 23.3.2010, on 13.09.2010 whereas the suit for cancellation of the sale deed was filed as far as back as…

Amar Nath Agarwal v. CIT (371 ITR 183) — Cited in 12 Judgments | BharatTax