Arjun Singh v. ADIT

246 ITR 363High Court2000#1066 most cited

What is Arjun Singh v. ADIT authority for?

For a valid reassessment, the sanctioning authority must apply its mind to the reasons for reopening the assessment under Section 147. A mechanical endorsement like 'I am satisfied' without considering the material amounts to non-application of mind and invalidates the sanction under Section 151.

102

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Arjun Singh v ADIT · 246 ITR 363 · Section 147 · Section 151 · reassessment sanction · approval for reassessment · non-application of mind · mechanical satisfaction · reason to believe · income escaping assessment · sanctioning authority

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 144Section 14ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)(i)

Issues it is cited on

principal chief commissioner of income-taxsection 147(b)section 147(a)sanctioning authorityapproval under section 151sanction under section 151section 151(2)section 151(1)non application of mindmaterial facts necessary for assessmentfirst proviso to section 147kelvinator

Judgments citing Arjun Singh v. ADIT

Viswanadh Kandula, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 1085/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1084 To 1088 & 1027/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2019-20) M/S Ace Tyres (P) Ltd Vs. Acit Hyderabad Central Circle 1(2) Pan:Aadca2210N Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V.Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese Six Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Six Separate Orders Dated 29/05/2025, 30/05/2025, 04/06/2025, 096/06/2025, 17/06/2025 & 14/07/2025 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Hyderabad Arising From The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act, Pursuant To The Search & Seizure Operations U/S 132 Of The Act, Dated 04/01/2023 In Case Of Exel Group Of Companies Including The Assessee For The A.Ys 2014-15 To 2019-20 Respectively. Since Common Issues Are Raised In These Group Of Six Appeals Arising From Same Facts & Search & Seizure Operation, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience, All Page 1 Of 78

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148BSection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151

…P. High Court in the case of CIT Jabalpur Vs. S. Goyanka Page 66 of 78 ITA Nos 1084 to 1088 and 1207 of 2025 ACE Tyres P Ltd Lime & Chemical Ltd. reported at (2015) 56 Taxmann.com 390 by following its own decision in the case of Arjun Singh Vs. ADIT (2000) 246 ITR 363 (M.P) held as under: 7. We have considered the rival contentions, and we find that while according to sanction, the Joint Commissioner, Income Tax has only recorded so "Yes, I am satisfied". In the case of Arjun Singh (supra), the same question has been considered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, and the following principles are laid down:--…

Amit Khatri, Sonipat vs. ITO, Ward 1, Sonipat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as

ITA 2430/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2430/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 बनाम Amit Khatri Income Tax Officer Ward No.30, Garhi Bhraman, Vs. Ward-1, Sonipat, Haryana. Sonipat, Haryana. Pan No. Bdspk3438G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 147Section 148Section 151

…proval granted by approving authority I.T.A. No. 2430/Del/2023 Further, reliance is placed on the following authorities: a. Chhugamal Rajpal vs. S.P. Chaliha & Ors. - 79 ITR 603 (SC); b. Arjun Singh vs Asstt. Director of Income Tax (M.P.) reported in (2000) 246 ITR 363 (MP); c. CIT vs M/s S.Goyanka Lime and Chemicals Ltd 231 Taxman 0073 Dated 15.10.2014 (MP) approved by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 64 taxmann.com 313 (SC). d. Pr. CITvs. N. C. Cables Ltd 391 ITR 11 (Del) I.T.A. No. 4908/Del/2018 AND I.T.A. No. 4907/Del/2018 22 e. Maruti Clean Coal& Power Ltd Vs ACIT WP(T) No.346 of 2017 Dated 03.01.2018 (Chattisgarh…

Sky Blue Infotech Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 23(4), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as

ITA 438/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.438/Del/2020 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Sky Blue Infotech Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer 206, Hans Bhawan, 1, Vs. Ward-23(4), Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, Room No.246, C.R. Bldg., New Delhi. I.P. Estate, New Delhi. Pan No. Aalcs1584K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69C

…ding based on mechanical approval granted by approving authority Further, reliance is placed on the following authorities: a. Chhugamal Rajpal vs. S.P. Chaliha & Ors. - 79 ITR 603 (SC); b. Arjun Singh vs Asstt. Director of Income Tax (M.P.) reported in (2000) 246 ITR 363 (MP); c. CIT vs M/s S.Goyanka Lime and Chemicals Ltd 231 Taxman 0073 Dated 15.10.2014 (MP) approved by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 64 taxmann.com 313 (SC). I.T.A. No. 438/Del/2020 d. Pr. CITvs. N. C. Cables Ltd 391 ITR 11 (Del) I.T.A. No. 4908/Del/2018 AND I.T.A. No. 4907/Del/2018 22 e. Maruti Clean Coal& Power Ltd Vs ACIT WP(T) No.346 of 2017 Dat…

Nisha Goel, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 52(3), Ward

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as

ITA 2767/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 144Section 147Section 151

…based on mechanical approval granted by approving authority. Further, reliance is placed on the following authorities: “a. Chhugamal Rajpal vs. S.P. Chaliha & Ors. - 79 ITR 603 (SC); b. Arjun Singh vs Asstt. Director of Income Tax (M.P.) reported in (2000) 246 ITR 363 (MP); c. Pr. CIT vs. N. C. Cables Ltd 391 ITR 11 (Del) d. German Remedies Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (2006) 287 ITR 494 (Bom); e. United Electrical Company P. Ltd. vs. CIT & Ors. (2002) 258 ITR 317 (Del); f. Central India electric Supply Co. Ltd. Vs. ITO, 333 ITR 237 (Del);” 9. Ld. DR, on the other hand, strongly supports the orders of the authorities…

M/S. Palan Real Estate Developers Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 827/AHD/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 827/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11)

For Respondent: Shri V. K. Mangla, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 68

…recorded in a mechanical manner and without application of mind by the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court. While arriving at this conclusion, the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court relied on its earlier decision in the case of Arjun Singh Vs. Asstt. DIT, [2000] 246 ITR 363 (MP), wherein it was held that the Commissioner acted, of course, mechanically in order to discharge his statutory obligation properly in the matter of recording sanction as he merely wrote on the format “Yes, I am satisfied” which indicates as if he was to sign only on the dotted line. As submitted by the learned Counsel for the assessee, the SL…

ITO, Corp Ward -1(1), Chennai vs. R Sundaravelu, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee, both are dismissed

ITA 3465/CHNY/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Sept 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 47

…Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemicals Ltd., [2015] 231 Taxman 73 (MP), wherein exactly on identical facts, following another decision of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Arjun Singh vs. Asst. DIT, [2000] 246 ITR 363 (MP) held the reopening as bad for not discharging his statutory obligation properly by observing in paras 7 to 9 as under:- 7. We have considered the rival contentions and we find that while according sanction, the Joint Commissioner, Income Tax has only recorded so "Yes, I am satisfied". In the case of Arjun Singh (supra), the same question has…

Sumangal Techpark (P) Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 24(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 3840/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri C.M. Gargassessment Year: 2010-11 Sumangal Techpark (P) Ltd., Vs. Ito, 117, Hans Bhawan, Ward-24(3), 1 Bsz Marg, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aalcs4760R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Ms Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2023 Order Per C.M. Garg, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.02.2019 Of The Cit(A)-8, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. First Of All, We Have Heard The Arguments Of Both The Representatives On Legal Ground No.1 Of The Assessee Which Reads As Under:- “3. The Initiation Of The Proceedings U/S 148 & The Consequent Order Us 147 Are Bad In Law As A) The Initiation Of Proceedings U/S 148 Are Contrary To Provisions Of Law B) The Mandatory Procedure Laid Down In The Act Has Not Been Followed. C) The Notice Issued U/S 148 Is Time Barred As Issued After 4 Years From The End Of The Relevant Assessment Year Where The Case Has Already Been Assessed U/S 143(3). D) The Approval Of Addl. Cit & Pcit Is Bad In Law & Mechanical Without Application Of Mind & Has Been Taken Without Bringing To Their Notice Material Facts Of The Case. E) The Information Has Been Collected Behind The Back Of The Assessee & The Assessee Was Never Confronted With The Same Nor An Opportunity Provided For Cross-Examination Of Jain Brothers, Alleged Intermediary & The Relevant Seized Material Relied Upon Has Not Been Provided To The Assessee.”

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 292B

…ing based on mechanical approval granted by approving authority. Further, reliance is placed on the following authorities: a. Chhugamal Rajpal vs. S.P. Chaliha & Ors. - 79 ITR 603 (SC); b. Arjun Singh vs Asstt. Director of Income Tax (M.P.) reported in (2000) 246 ITR 363 (MP); c. CIT vs M/s S.Goyanka Lime and Chemicals Ltd 231 Taxman 0073 Dated 15.10.2014 (MP) approved by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 64 taxmann.com 313 (SC). d. Pr. CIT vs. N. C. Cables Ltd 391 ITR 11 (Del) e. Maruti Clean Coal& Power Ltd Vs ACIT WP(T) No.346 of 2017 Dated 03.01.2018 (Chattisgarh High Court); f. German Remedies Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (2006)…

Shyam Products P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-23(3), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 4908/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C.

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar GuptaFor Respondent: Sr. D. R
Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 68Section 69C

…ding based on mechanical approval granted by approving authority Further, reliance is placed on the following authorities: a. Chhugamal Rajpal vs. S.P. Chaliha & Ors. - 79 ITR 603 (SC); b. Arjun Singh vs Asstt. Director of Income Tax (M.P.) reported in (2000) 246 ITR 363 (MP); c. CIT vs M/s S.Goyanka Lime and Chemicals Ltd 231 Taxman 0073 Dated 15.10.2014 (MP) approved by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 64 taxmann.com 313 (SC). d. Pr. CITvs. N. C. Cables Ltd 391 ITR 11 (Del) 21 I.T.A. No. 4908/Del/2018 AND I.T.A. No. 4907/Del/2018 e. Maruti Clean Coal& Power Ltd Vs ACIT WP(T) No.346 of 2017 Dated 03.01.2018 (Chattisga…

Optimist Electronics P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-19(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 4907/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C.

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar GuptaFor Respondent: Sr. D. R
Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 68Section 69C

…ding based on mechanical approval granted by approving authority Further, reliance is placed on the following authorities: a. Chhugamal Rajpal vs. S.P. Chaliha & Ors. - 79 ITR 603 (SC); b. Arjun Singh vs Asstt. Director of Income Tax (M.P.) reported in (2000) 246 ITR 363 (MP); c. CIT vs M/s S.Goyanka Lime and Chemicals Ltd 231 Taxman 0073 Dated 15.10.2014 (MP) approved by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 64 taxmann.com 313 (SC). d. Pr. CITvs. N. C. Cables Ltd 391 ITR 11 (Del) 21 I.T.A. No. 4908/Del/2018 AND I.T.A. No. 4907/Del/2018 e. Maruti Clean Coal& Power Ltd Vs ACIT WP(T) No.346 of 2017 Dated 03.01.2018 (Chattisga…

Success International, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward- 51(4), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 7301/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharmasuccess International, Vs. Ito, C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates, Ward-51(4), Ca L-7A, )Lgf), South Extn, New Delhi Part-Ii, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaxfs3915K

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69C

…to mechanical sanction of reopening he relied on the judgment PCIT Vs. NC Cable Ltd 391 ITR (Delhi) 11, United Electrical Company (P) Ltd Vs. CIT & Ors 258 ITR 317 (Del), Chhugamal Rajpal Vs. SP Chaliha & Ors 79 ITR 603 (SC), Arjun Singh & Anr Vs. ADIT & Ors 246 ITR 363 (MP), Shri Amarlal Bajaj Vs. ACIT (ITA No. 611/Mum/2004, Mumbai ITAT order dated 24.07.2013). 8. It was also submitted that assessee was not given opportunity for cross examination of witness relied by the Ld. AO and the request was brushed aside on the ground that the statement were recorded by Director of Investigation so let assessee have opp…

DCIT Cen Cir 5(1), Mumbai vs. Martand Properties Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the department are dismissed and all the Cross objections filed by the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 465/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar &
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

…where the approval is given by recording 'yes, I am satisfied', it cannot be said that the approving authority has applied his mind. The Hon'ble High Court relied upon the decision of the co-ordinate bench of the High Court in the case of Arjun Singh v. ADIT (246 ITR 363). It was held that the approval was given mechanically and, hence, the same is unsustainable. Further it was submitted that the Special Leave Petition against the said decision of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Goenka Lime & Chemicals Ltd. (64 taxmann.com 313). C.O. Nos. 182, 183…

DCIT Cen Cir 5(1), Mumbai vs. Martand Properties Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the department are dismissed and all the Cross objections filed by the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 464/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar &
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

…where the approval is given by recording 'yes, I am satisfied', it cannot be said that the approving authority has applied his mind. The Hon'ble High Court relied upon the decision of the co-ordinate bench of the High Court in the case of Arjun Singh v. ADIT (246 ITR 363). It was held that the approval was given mechanically and, hence, the same is unsustainable. Further it was submitted that the Special Leave Petition against the said decision of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Goenka Lime & Chemicals Ltd. (64 taxmann.com 313). C.O. Nos. 182, 183…

DCIT CC-5(1), Mumbai vs. Reva Properties Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the department are dismissed and all the Cross objections filed by the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 460/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar &
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

…where the approval is given by recording 'yes, I am satisfied', it cannot be said that the approving authority has applied his mind. The Hon'ble High Court relied upon the decision of the co-ordinate bench of the High Court in the case of Arjun Singh v. ADIT (246 ITR 363). It was held that the approval was given mechanically and, hence, the same is unsustainable. Further it was submitted that the Special Leave Petition against the said decision of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Goenka Lime & Chemicals Ltd. (64 taxmann.com 313). C.O. Nos. 182, 183…

DCIT CC-5(1), Mumbai vs. Reva Properties Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the department are dismissed and all the Cross objections filed by the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 459/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar &
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

…where the approval is given by recording 'yes, I am satisfied', it cannot be said that the approving authority has applied his mind. The Hon'ble High Court relied upon the decision of the co-ordinate bench of the High Court in the case of Arjun Singh v. ADIT (246 ITR 363). It was held that the approval was given mechanically and, hence, the same is unsustainable. Further it was submitted that the Special Leave Petition against the said decision of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Goenka Lime & Chemicals Ltd. (64 taxmann.com 313). C.O. Nos. 182, 183…

DCIT CC-5(1), Mumbai vs. Reva Properties Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the department are dismissed and all the Cross objections filed by the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 458/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar &
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

…where the approval is given by recording 'yes, I am satisfied', it cannot be said that the approving authority has applied his mind. The Hon'ble High Court relied upon the decision of the co-ordinate bench of the High Court in the case of Arjun Singh v. ADIT (246 ITR 363). It was held that the approval was given mechanically and, hence, the same is unsustainable. Further it was submitted that the Special Leave Petition against the said decision of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Goenka Lime & Chemicals Ltd. (64 taxmann.com 313). C.O. Nos. 182, 183…

DCIT CC-5(1), Mumbai vs. Archive Realty Developers Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 456/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit, Central Circle – 5(1) V. M/S. Archive Realty Developers Ltd., Room No. 1928, 19Th Floor 324, Master Mind-Iv, Royal Palms Air India Building Aarey Milk Colony, Goregaon (E) Nariman Point Mumbai - 400065 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aagca5488D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 68

…where the approval is given by recording 'yes, I am satisfied', it cannot be said that the approving authority has applied his mind. The Hon'ble High Court relied upon the decision of the co-ordinate bench of the High Court in the case of Arjun Singh v. ADIT (246 ITR 363). It was held that the approval was given mechanically and, hence, the same is unsustainable. The Special Leave Petition against the said decision of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Goenka Lime & Chemicals Ltd. (64 taxmann.com 313). 5. Reliance is also placed upon the decision of…

Smt. Rashmi Pahariya, Jabalpur vs. Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal is dismissed

ITA 28/JAB/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur22 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri L.L. Sharma, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gotru, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 50C

…ing the assessment was granted by the sanctioning authority by stating: „Yes, it is a fit case for issue of notice u/s. 148‟. The same, he, relying on the decision by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Arjun Singh vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax [2000] 246 ITR 363 (MP), would submit, was not proper, rendering the impugned assessment itself as bad in 3 | P a g e Rashmi Pahariya vs. Pr. CIT law. We do not think so. The said order, being not challenged, has since attained finality and, therefore, cannot be agitated in the instant, collateral proceedings (refer: CIT v. Mtt. Ar. S. Ar. Arunachalam Chettiar [19…

M/S. Kedar Cotton Industries, Mehsana vs. DCIT, Mehsana Circle, Mehsana

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

ITA 531/AHD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Kedar Cotton Industries, Deputy Commissioner Of Survey No.50/1, Vs Income-Tax, At. Post Budasan, Mehsana Circle, Tal. Kadi, Mehsana Mehsana Pan : Aadfk 2494 F अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hem Chhajed, Ca Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 07/06/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/06/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Gandhinagar, Ahmedabad (“Cit(A)” In Short) Dated 20.02.2019. 2. The Relevant Facts Of The Case Giving Rise To This Appeal Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm Which Is Engaged In The Business Of Ginning & Pressing Of Cotton. The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Was Filed By It On 23.09.2010 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.5,14,300/-. The Said Return Was Selected For Scrutiny & In The Assessment Originally Completed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” In Short) Vide Order Dated 26.03.2013, Total Income Of The Assessee Was Determined By The Assessing Officer At Rs.3,84,53,522/- After Making An Addition Of Rs.3,79,39,222/-. Against The Said Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, An Appeal Was Preferred By The Assessee Before The Learned Cit(A) Who Allowed The Said Kedar Cotton Industries Vs. Dcit Ay : 2010-11 2

For Appellant: Shri Hem Chhajed, CAFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…cation of mind by the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court. While arriving at this conclusion, the Kedar Cotton Industries Vs. DCIT AY : 2010-11 6 Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court relied on its earlier decision in the case of Arjun Singh Vs. Asstt. DIT, [2000] 246 ITR 363 (MP), wherein it was held that the Commissioner acted, of course, mechanically in order to discharge his statutory obligation properly in the matter of recording sanction as he merely wrote on the format “Yes, I am satisfied” which indicates as if he was to sign only on the dotted line. As submitted by the learned Counsel for the assessee, the SL…

The Amravati People Co-Op Bank Ltd ( Now Merged in the Cosmos Co-Op Bank Ltd), Amaravati vs. D.C.I.T. Amravati Circle, Amaravati

ITA 309/NAG/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No. 309/Nag/2015 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 The Amravati Peoples Co-Op. Bank Limited (Now Merged In The Cosmos Co-Op. Bank Ltd.) C/O. Cosmos Co-Op Bank Ltd. Jawahar Road, Amravati-444601. Pan : Aaact5899B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Amravati Circle, Amravati. ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri S.G. Gandhi, Ar Revenue By : Smt. Agnes P. Thomas, Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 18.02.2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 09.05.2022

For Appellant: Shri S.G. Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Agnes P. Thomas, DR
Section 143(3)Section 151

…tice under section 148 of the Act. On an identical issue the Hon'ble M.P. High Court in the case of CIT Jabalpur Vs. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemical Ltd. reported at (2015) 56 Taxmann.com 390 by following its own decision in the case of Arjun Singh Vs. ADIT (2000) 246 ITR 363 (M.P) held as under: 7. We have considered the rival contentions and we find that while according sanction, the Joint Commissioner, Income Tax has only recorded so "Yes, I am satisfied". In the case of Arjun Singh (supra), the same question has been considered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court and the following principles are laid down:— The Co…

Shri Harjinder Singh, Bathinda vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Bathinda

ITA 141/ASR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rohit Mehra, CIT DR
Section 131(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)

…tice under section 148 of the Act. On an identical issue the Hon'ble M.P. High Court in the case of CIT Jabalpur Vs. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemical Ltd. reported at (2015) 56 Taxmann.com 390 by following its own decision in the case of Arjun Singh Vs. ADIT (2000) 246 ITR 363 (M.P) held as under: 7. We have considered the rival contentions and we find that while according sanction, the Joint Commissioner, Income Tax has only recorded so "Yes, I am satisfied". In the case of Arjun Singh (supra), the same question has been considered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court and the following principles are laid down:— The…