Bir Bahadur Singh Sijwali v. ITO

53 Taxmann.com 366High Court2015#1394 most cited

What is Bir Bahadur Singh Sijwali v. ITO authority for?

For reassessment under Section 147, merely finding deposits in a savings bank account is not sufficient 'reason to believe' for the Assessing Officer. The officer must specifically record reasons demonstrating that income has escaped assessment to validly issue a notice under Section 148.

82

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Bir Bahadur Singh Sijwali v. ITO · 53 Taxmann.com 366 · Section 147 · Section 148 · reason to believe · reassessment notice validity · mere bank deposits · income escapement · sufficiency of reasons · ITAT Delhi Bench

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Bir Bahadur Singh Sijwali v. ITO

Santosh, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 37(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1696/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Narender Kumar Choudhrysantosh Vs. Ito 190-191, 2Nd Floor, Ward – 37(1) Pocket-2, Sector – 22, New Delhi Rohini, New Delhi- 110085 Pan No. Dcaps 8853 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Subhash Singhal, C.A. Revenue By Shri B. M. Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 30.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.02.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.02.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case As Culled Out From The Material On Record Are As Under :-

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Santosh Vs. ITO 190-191, 2nd Floor, Ward – 37(1) Pocket-2, Sector – 22, New Delhi Rohini, New Delhi- 110085 PAN No. DCAPS 8853 Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Shri Subhash Singhal, C.A. Revenue by Shri B. M. Singh, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing: 30.01.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 02.02.2023 ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 26.02.2020 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Delhi rela…

Shri Naresh Kumar Yadav, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer- 1(5), Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 186/LKW/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Naresh Kumar Yadav V. Ito-1(5) Vill. & Post Madiyaon Lucknow Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aebpy8040D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Prashant Kumar Verma, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12 07 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 26 07 2022 O R D E R This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Lucknow, Dated 11.10.2019, For Assessment Year 2011- 12, Raising The Following Original Grounds Of Appeal: 1. Because, The Whole Assessment Order Impugned In The Present Appeal Stands Wholly Vitiated As There Can Be No Reason To Believe That Income Has Escaped Assessment U/S 147/144 On The Ground Of Mere Cash Deposits In The Bank Account Amounting To Rs.12,98,000/- Therefore, The Entire Assessment Proceedings Are Liable To Be Held As Nullity & Without Jurisdiction. 2. Because, The Assessment Order Impugned In The Present Appeal Stands Wholly Vitiated As There Can Be No Reason To Believe On The Basis Of Air Information That Income Has Escaped Assessment U/S 147/144 On The Ground Of Mere Cash Deposits In Bank Account Amounting Rs.12,98,000/-. Therefore, The Entire Assessment Proceedings Are Liable To Be Held As Nullity & Without Jurisdiction.

For Appellant: Shri Prashant Kumar VermaFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R
Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “SMC”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Naresh Kumar Yadav v. ITO-1(5) Vill. And Post Madiyaon Lucknow Lucknow TAN/PAN:AEBPY8040D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Prashant Kumar Verma, Advocate Respondent by: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date of hearing: 12 07 2022 Date of pronouncement: 26 07 2022 O R D E R This is assessee’s appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-1, Lucknow, dated 11.10.2019, for Assessment Year 2011- 12, raising the following original Grounds of Appeal: 1. Because, the whole assessment o…