Avtec Ltd. v. DCIT

395 ITR 434High Court2017#7444 most cited

What is Avtec Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

For reassessment beyond four years, the Assessing Officer must demonstrate in the reasons that the assessee failed to disclose material facts and must specify the tangible material that led to this conclusion. This is a mandatory requirement under the first proviso to Section 147.

15

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Avtec Ltd v DCIT · 395 ITR 434 · Section 147 · Section 148 · first proviso to section 147 · income escaping assessment · beyond four years · failure to disclose material facts · tangible material · reasons for reassessment · borrowed satisfaction

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 139Section 142Section 151Section 153CSection 292B

Issues it is cited on

section 147(1)section 148(1)section 116section 147(a)first proviso to section 147beyond four yearspaper companyshell companymere change of opinionlive linkincome escaping assessmentborrowed satisfaction

Judgments citing Avtec Ltd. v. DCIT

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Sahara India Mass Communication Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed as above

ITA 3130/DEL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…t, which was a mandatory requirement under 1" proviso to section 147 of the Act as the reopening had been initiated after expiry of four years. Reliance was placed on the following decisions:  PCTT v. DSC Ltd.: 153 taxmann.com 535 (Del)  Avtec Ltd vs DCIT: 395 ITR 434 (Del)  D. T. and T. D. C. Ltd: 324 ITR 234 (Del)  Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co Ltd vs CIT: 308 ITR 38 (Del)  CIT v. Indian Farmers Fertilizer Cooperative Ltd: 171 Taxman 379 (Del) Sahara One Media & Entertainment. Ltd.  Wel Intertrade (P) Ltd v. ITO 308 ITR 22 (Del)  Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd: 343 ITR 141 (Del)  CIT v. Shri Tirath Ram…

Pankaj Khanna Dy. CIT, Central Circle-13, New Delhi, Delhi vs. Tipsy Financial & Management Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Revenue's appeal is dismissed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 1425/DEL/2021[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareek

Section 147Section 148

…d true material facts that were necessary for the assessment by the AO, to justify the invocation of the first proviso to Section 147, while issuing notice under Section 148 to the assessee. Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, in the case of Avtec Ltd Vs, DCIT 395 ITR 434, has held that the reasons recorded by the AO, should, where the reopening under Section 147 of the Act is after expiry of four years from the end of the financial year, specifically state in what manner there was a failure by the assessee to make a full and true disclosure of material facts and that will have to be preceded by spelling out the t…

Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Surat, Gujrat vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the three appeal for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 of the assessee are allowed

ITA 759/KOL/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.757 To 759/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aafcp2218P) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appeared For Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 26.08.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: The Captioned Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2011-12 To 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 03.11.2022 Arising Out Of The Separate Assessment Orders U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata Dated 31.12.2018. Since Grounds Of Appeal Raised In These Appeals Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Dispose Of All These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

…7 ITR 494 (vii) CIT Vs. Motor & General Finance Ltd. 184 Taxman 465 (viii) Austin Engineering Co. ltd. Vs. JCIT 312 ITR 70 (ix) CIT Vs. Shri Tirath Ram Ahuja (HUF) 306 ITR 173 (Del.) (x) Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. Vs. CIT 308 ITR 38 (xi) Avted Vs. DCIT 395 ITR 434. 8. Further, ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to the following written submissions: “In the order of assessment which has been framed by A.O. u/s 143(3)/147, he has made various observations which pertain to the nature of the business of the appellant. The A.O. has proceeded to hold that the business carried on by the appellant is bogus. He…

Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Surat, Gujrat vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the three appeal for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 of the assessee are allowed

ITA 758/KOL/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.757 To 759/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aafcp2218P) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appeared For Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 26.08.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: The Captioned Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2011-12 To 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 03.11.2022 Arising Out Of The Separate Assessment Orders U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata Dated 31.12.2018. Since Grounds Of Appeal Raised In These Appeals Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Dispose Of All These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

…7 ITR 494 (vii) CIT Vs. Motor & General Finance Ltd. 184 Taxman 465 (viii) Austin Engineering Co. ltd. Vs. JCIT 312 ITR 70 (ix) CIT Vs. Shri Tirath Ram Ahuja (HUF) 306 ITR 173 (Del.) (x) Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. Vs. CIT 308 ITR 38 (xi) Avted Vs. DCIT 395 ITR 434. 8. Further, ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to the following written submissions: “In the order of assessment which has been framed by A.O. u/s 143(3)/147, he has made various observations which pertain to the nature of the business of the appellant. The A.O. has proceeded to hold that the business carried on by the appellant is bogus. He…

Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Surat, Gujrat vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the three appeal for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 of the assessee are allowed

ITA 757/KOL/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.757 To 759/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aafcp2218P) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appeared For Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 26.08.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: The Captioned Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2011-12 To 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 03.11.2022 Arising Out Of The Separate Assessment Orders U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata Dated 31.12.2018. Since Grounds Of Appeal Raised In These Appeals Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Dispose Of All These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

…7 ITR 494 (vii) CIT Vs. Motor & General Finance Ltd. 184 Taxman 465 (viii) Austin Engineering Co. ltd. Vs. JCIT 312 ITR 70 (ix) CIT Vs. Shri Tirath Ram Ahuja (HUF) 306 ITR 173 (Del.) (x) Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. Vs. CIT 308 ITR 38 (xi) Avted Vs. DCIT 395 ITR 434. 8. Further, ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to the following written submissions: “In the order of assessment which has been framed by A.O. u/s 143(3)/147, he has made various observations which pertain to the nature of the business of the appellant. The A.O. has proceeded to hold that the business carried on by the appellant is bogus. He…

Pataka Industries Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle-8(2), Kolkata Presently Circle-7(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 342/KOL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kochar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Prakash Ranjan, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 201(1)Section 40

…ment proceedings and the impugned reassessment order passed is a nullity in the eyes of law. 5.2. To buttress his contentions, he placed reliance on the following judicial precedence: (i) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Avtec Ltd. vs. DCIT reported in 395 ITR 434 wherein it was held that the reasons recorded by the A.O. should where the reopening u/s 147 of the Act is after expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, specifically state in what manner there was a failure by the assessee to make a full and true disclosure of material facts and that will have to be proceeded by spellin…

ACIT CC-30, New Delhi vs. Mk Wood India Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 572/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 571& 572/Del/2021 (Assessment Year : 2011-12, 2012-13)

Section 139Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…1 ITA No. 571 & 572/Del./2021 MK WOOD INDIA P. Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘E’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 571& 572/Del/2021 (Assessment Year : 2011-12, 2012-13) Assistant Commissioner of Vs. M/s. M. K. Wood India Pvt. Income Tax, Ltd. , 74/20, Amar Colony, Central Circle – 30, Main Rohtak Road, New Delhi Nangloi, New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C.O. No. 33 & 34 /Del./2021 (Arising out of ITA No. 571& 572/Del/2021) (Assessment Year : 2011-12, 2012-13) Dy. Commissioner of Income Vs. M/s. M. K.…

ACIT CC-30, New Delhi vs. Mk Wood India Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 571/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 571& 572/Del/2021 (Assessment Year : 2011-12, 2012-13)

Section 139Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…1 ITA No. 571 & 572/Del./2021 MK WOOD INDIA P. Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘E’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 571& 572/Del/2021 (Assessment Year : 2011-12, 2012-13) Assistant Commissioner of Vs. M/s. M. K. Wood India Pvt. Income Tax, Ltd. , 74/20, Amar Colony, Central Circle – 30, Main Rohtak Road, New Delhi Nangloi, New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C.O. No. 33 & 34 /Del./2021 (Arising out of ITA No. 571& 572/Del/2021) (Assessment Year : 2011-12, 2012-13) Dy. Commissioner of Income Vs. M/s. M. K.…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad vs. Coastal Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the C.O. filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 497/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri H. SrinivasuluFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 153ASection 69

…(P) Ltd -357 ITR 586 (Del) (ii) Tantia Constructions Co Ltd -257 ITR 84 (Cal) Pages-128 to 153 :- 8 -: ITA No.. 497/Hyd/2019 and CO 16/H/2019 Coastal Projects Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. (iii) 5abharwal properties industries (P) Ltd -382 ITR 547 (Del) (iv) AV TEe Ltd -395 ITR 434 (Del) 7.5 The earned PClT, Central has mechanically and without application of mind has approved the proposal of AO to reopen the assessment. The reasons recorded, as furnished to the Appellant, are incomplete and defective because in Annexure 1 to his proposal AO has not appraised the Learned PClT that there was a failure to disclose the materia…

D.C.I.T., Circle-11(1), Kolkata vs. Turtle Ltd., Howrah

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2620/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am]

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 3

…1 Turtle Ltd. AY: 2012-13 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, JM & Shri Girish Agrawal, AM] I.T.A. No. 2620/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 DCIT, Circle-11(1), Kolkata Vs. Turtle Ltd. (PAN: AABCT 1375 R) Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing (virtual) 02.02.2022 Date of Pronouncement 23.02.2022 For the Appellant Shri Manish Tiwari, FCA For the Respondent Md. Ghayas Uddin, CITDR ORDER Per Shri A.T.Varkey, JM This is an appeal preferred by the revenue against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-4, Kolkata dated 02.09.2019 for AY 2012-13. 2. The first ground of the revenue i…

Devki Nandan Bindal, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 46(3), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

ITA 4271/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 144Section 147Section 148

…y, granting exemption - Notice after four years on the ground that claim for exemption was not examined properly - No failure to disclose material facts necessary for assessment.” 5.5. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Avtec Ltd., vs. DCIT (2017) 395 ITR 434 (Del.) noted that “In case of notice after four years, the conditions precedent for 33 ITA.No.4271/Del./2019 Shri Devki Nandan Bindal, Delhi. reassessment is that in what manner assessee failed to disclose material facts fully and fresh or tangible material must be disclosed in reasons.” 5.6. Considering the facts of the case, in the light of…

DCIT, Rohtak vs. M/S. Kla Food (India) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result Appeal of the Department is dismissed and the cross-objection of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2846/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Smt. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153C

…KLA Food (India) Ltd., New Delhi ITA.No.2845/D/2015 & CO.No.372/D/2015 M/s. Param Exim Ltd., New Delhi. properly - No failure to disclose material facts necessary for assessment.” 5.5. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Avtec Ltd., vs. DCIT (2017) 395 ITR 434 (Del.) noted that “In case of notice after four years, the conditions precedent for reassessment is that in what manner assessee failed to disclose material facts fully and fresh or tangible material must be disclosed in reasons.” 5.6. Considering the facts of the case, in the light of reasons recorded above and discussion, it is clear that the…

DCIT, Rohtak vs. M/S. Param Exim Ltd., New Delhi

In the result Appeal of the Department is dismissed and the cross-objection of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2845/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Smt. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153C

…KLA Food (India) Ltd., New Delhi ITA.No.2845/D/2015 & CO.No.372/D/2015 M/s. Param Exim Ltd., New Delhi. properly - No failure to disclose material facts necessary for assessment.” 5.5. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Avtec Ltd., vs. DCIT (2017) 395 ITR 434 (Del.) noted that “In case of notice after four years, the conditions precedent for reassessment is that in what manner assessee failed to disclose material facts fully and fresh or tangible material must be disclosed in reasons.” 5.6. Considering the facts of the case, in the light of reasons recorded above and discussion, it is clear that the…

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

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

ITA 6698/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jun 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiassessment Year : 2005-06 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Dcit, Circle- 1(1), Jindal Centre, Gurgaon. 12, Bhikaji Cama Place, Vs. Delhi.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 80I

…vir Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT: 270 ITR 290 (P&H). (d) State Bank of Patiala v. CIT: 375 ITR 109 (P&H). (e) Oriental Carpet Mfrs. (India) Ltd. v. ITO: (1987) 168 ITR 296 (P&H). (f) In Winsome Textiles Industries Vs. UOI: 278 ITR 470 (P&H). (g) Avtec v. DCIT: 395 ITR 434 (Del.). 12 Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd. v. ACIT: 216 ITR 371 (Guj.) (i) Fenner India Ltd. v. DCIT: 241 ITR 672 (Mad.). (j) Hindustan Lever Ltd. : 268 ITR 332 (Bom.). (k) Babu Lal Jug Raj & Co. vs. ITO: 289 ITR 115 (Raj.). (l) Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company v. CIT: 308 ITR 38 (Del.). (m) CIT v. Indian Farmers Fertil…

M/S Greater Mohali Area Development Authority, Mohali vs. DCIT, C-6(1), Mohali

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

ITA 1560/CHANDI/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Gulshan Raj, CIT DR
Section 139Section 142Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…On the aforesaid ground alone, the impugned notice dated 31st March 2016 under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and re-assessment proceedings deserves to be quashed and set-aside.” The Hon’ble Delhi high court in the case of Avtec Ltd. vs DCIT (2017) 395 ITR 434 reiterated the same holding as under: ITA No.1560/Chd/2017- Greater Mohali Area Development Authority, Mohali “In the present case, the tangible material that the AO came across for the AYs in question that warranted the reopening of the assessments is not clear from the 'reasons to believe' recorded by the AO. The reasons merely record the fac…

Avtec Ltd. v. DCIT (395 ITR 434) — Cited in 15 Judgments | BharatTax