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

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5611/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA and Shri Satyajeet Goel, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nandita Kanchan, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 264Section 80I

…n this case have not been approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a similar case in Chhugamal Rajpal vs. S.P. Chaliha & Ors. – 79 ITR 603 (SC) and Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Arjun Singh vs Asstt. Director of Income Tax (M.P.) reported in (2000) 246 ITR 363 (MP). Thus, we are not satisfied that AO had any material before him which satisfies the requirements of section 147. Therefore, he could not have issued notice u/s 148. Further, the report submitted by him u/s 151 does not mention any reason and does not mention which facts were not disclosed by the assessee. We are also of the opinion that th…

M/S. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5581/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA and Shri Satyajeet Goel, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nandita Kanchan, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 264Section 80I

…n this case have not been approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a similar case in Chhugamal Rajpal vs. S.P. Chaliha & Ors. – 79 ITR 603 (SC) and Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Arjun Singh vs Asstt. Director of Income Tax (M.P.) reported in (2000) 246 ITR 363 (MP). Thus, we are not satisfied that AO had any material before him which satisfies the requirements of section 147. Therefore, he could not have issued notice u/s 148. Further, the report submitted by him u/s 151 does not mention any reason and does not mention which facts were not disclosed by the assessee. We are also of the opinion that th…