Chhugamal Rajpal v. S.P. Chaliha

79 ITR 603Supreme Court of India1971#206 most cited

What is Chhugamal Rajpal v. S.P. Chaliha authority for?

A valid reassessment under Section 147 requires concrete 'reasons to believe' that income has escaped assessment, not mere suspicion or a desire to conduct fishing and roving enquiries. If the first proviso to Section 147 applies, there must be a specific finding of the assessee's failure to disclose material facts, not just a mere charge of bogus expenses.

363

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Chhugamal Rajpal v. S.P. Chaliha · Section 147 · Section 148 · reasons to believe · reopening assessment · fishing enquiries · roving enquiries · escapement of income · first proviso to Section 147 · failure to disclose material facts · sanction under Section 151

Sections most often in play

Section 148Section 147Section 151Section 143(3)Section 132Section 142(1)Section 68Section 153C

Issues it is cited on

section 147(a)sanctioning authoritysection 151(2)sanction under section 151section 148(2)section 151(1)approval under section 151material facts necessary for assessmentsection 158bgfirst proviso to section 147live linksection 149(1)(b)

Judgments citing Chhugamal Rajpal v. S.P. Chaliha

Shri Nishant Kantilal Patel, Bharuch vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bharuch

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee (In ITA No

ITA 5/SRT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.05 & 06/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Nishantkantilal Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9, Uma Park Society, Near Uma Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Bhavan, Bharuch-393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Amepp2505R (Assessee) (Respondent) Smt Muktabennishantbhai Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9-10, Patel Kubj, Uma Park Society, B/H Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Uma Bhavan, Old Nh No.8, Gidc, Zadeshwar, Ankleshwar -393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Binpp5922N (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.07 & 10/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah -CAFor Respondent: Ms Anupama Singhla -Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…I(2), Calcutta." It is abundantly clear that the two reasons which have been given for the belief which was formed by the Income-tax Officer hopelessly fail to satisfy the requirements of the statute. In a recent case, Chhugamal Rajpal v. S. P. Chaliha [1971] 79 ITR 603 (SC), which came up before this court, a similar situation had arisen and under the directions of the court, the department produced the records to show that the Income-tax Officer had complied with the conditions laid down in the statute for issuing a notice relating to escapement of income. There also, the report submitted by the Officer to the…

Shri Nishant Kantilal Patel, Bharuch vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bharuch

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee (In ITA No

ITA 10/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.05 & 06/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Nishantkantilal Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9, Uma Park Society, Near Uma Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Bhavan, Bharuch-393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Amepp2505R (Assessee) (Respondent) Smt Muktabennishantbhai Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9-10, Patel Kubj, Uma Park Society, B/H Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Uma Bhavan, Old Nh No.8, Gidc, Zadeshwar, Ankleshwar -393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Binpp5922N (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.07 & 10/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah -CAFor Respondent: Ms Anupama Singhla -Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…I(2), Calcutta." It is abundantly clear that the two reasons which have been given for the belief which was formed by the Income-tax Officer hopelessly fail to satisfy the requirements of the statute. In a recent case, Chhugamal Rajpal v. S. P. Chaliha [1971] 79 ITR 603 (SC), which came up before this court, a similar situation had arisen and under the directions of the court, the department produced the records to show that the Income-tax Officer had complied with the conditions laid down in the statute for issuing a notice relating to escapement of income. There also, the report submitted by the Officer to the…

Shri Tyrone Patrick Lemos, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-2(1)(2), Vadodara

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2414/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Nov 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasadआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2414/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri Ketan H. Shah, A.R
Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

…the superior authorities are not empty formalities and such approval cannot be given mechanically or perfunctorily without application of mind to the facts and material placed before him. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chhugamal Rajpal vs. S. P. Chaliha (1971) 79 ITR 603 (SC) has set aside the action of the superior authority as satisfaction was found to be arrived mechanically and a mere pretense where the superior authority merely expressed his satisfaction as ‘yes’ on the note forwarded to ITA No. 2414/Ahd/18 [Shri Tyrone Patrick Lemos vs. ITO] A.Y. 2013-14 - 14 - him by the AO for reopening a case. Application…

Seawood Hospitality & Realty Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (CC) 3 (4), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed on the legal aspect of quashing of reopening of assessment

ITA 92/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Justice P P Bhatt & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am M/S. Seawoods Hospitality & Vs. Dcit(Cc)-3(4), Mumbai Realty Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 3(4) Room No.1915, 19Th Floor B/306-309, Business Dynasty Park Air India Building Jb Nagar, Opp. Sangam Cinema, Nariman Point Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai – 400 059 Pan/Gir No.Aamcs1472M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & M/S. Sukaniya Properties Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit (Cc)-3(4), B/306-309, Business Dynasty Mumbai Park, J B Nagar, Opp. Sangam Central Circle-3(4) Room No.1915, 19Th Floor Cinema, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 059 Air India Building Nariman Point Mumbai-400021 Pan/Gir No. Aadcs9585J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) M/S. Seawood Hospitaly & Realty P. Ltd. & M/S. Sukaniya Properties P. Ltd.

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151(1)Section 68

…or A.Y.2008- 09 dated 09/01/2020. (b) Decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. N.C. Cables Limited reported in 391 ITR 11 (Del) (c) Decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chhugamal Rajpal vs. S.P.Chaliha & Others reported in 79 ITR 603 (SC) M/s. Seawood Hospitaly and Realty P. Ltd., & M/s. Sukaniya Properties P. Ltd., (d) Decision of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. S.Goyanka Lime and Chemical Ltd. reported in 231 Taxman 73. SLP of revenue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was also dismissed in 237 Taxman 378. (e) Co-ordinate Bench decision of this Tribun…

Sutinder Singh, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-16(3), Hyderabad

In the result both the appeals under consideration are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 221/HYD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony(Through Virtual Conference)

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kardam
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…enquiry which may require detection of income escaping assessment. :- 5 -: ITA Nos. 220 & 221Hyd/2018 Sutinder Singh, Hyd. 13· The ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Chhugamal Vs. P.Chaliha £1971] 79 ITR 603 (S.C.) 3.2 Vide letter dated 11/09/2018, the assessee has raised further additional grounds, which are as under: “14. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that there is no addition made based on the reason formed and recorded for the year under consideration. 15. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that there must be a live link between…

Sutinder Singh, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-16(3), Hyderabad

In the result both the appeals under consideration are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 220/HYD/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Oct 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony(Through Virtual Conference)

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kardam
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…enquiry which may require detection of income escaping assessment. :- 5 -: ITA Nos. 220 & 221Hyd/2018 Sutinder Singh, Hyd. 13· The ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Chhugamal Vs. P.Chaliha £1971] 79 ITR 603 (S.C.) 3.2 Vide letter dated 11/09/2018, the assessee has raised further additional grounds, which are as under: “14. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that there is no addition made based on the reason formed and recorded for the year under consideration. 15. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that there must be a live link between…

M/S Navodaya Grama Vikas Charitable Trust, Mangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Circle-1, Mangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 553/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V.Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (D.R)
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…ink must also be apparent from the reading of the reasons recording. The Ld. AR placed reliance on the ratio of the following decisions: 1) M/s. Calcutta Discount Co. reported in 41 ITR 191[SC] Gangasaran reported in 130 ITR 1 [2] Chuharma( Rajpal reported in 79 ITR 603[SC] [3] Lakhmani Mewat Das reported in 103 ITR 437 (SC) [4] 7 The Ld. AR submitted that the concept of live-link as explained by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT. Vs. Lakhmani Mewat Das reported in 103 ITR 437 wherein it was held that the reasons set out by the A.O. to the belief that income has escaped assessment is totally absent in this. T…

M/S.Navodaya Grama Vikas Charitable Trust, Mangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Circle-1, Mangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 552/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Oct 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V.Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (D.R)
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…ink must also be apparent from the reading of the reasons recording. The Ld. AR placed reliance on the ratio of the following decisions: 1) M/s. Calcutta Discount Co. reported in 41 ITR 191[SC] Gangasaran reported in 130 ITR 1 [2] Chuharma( Rajpal reported in 79 ITR 603[SC] [3] Lakhmani Mewat Das reported in 103 ITR 437 (SC) [4] 7 The Ld. AR submitted that the concept of live-link as explained by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT. Vs. Lakhmani Mewat Das reported in 103 ITR 437 wherein it was held that the reasons set out by the A.O. to the belief that income has escaped assessment is totally absent in this. T…

Smt. Malti Khandelwal, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4-2, Jaipur

In the result, the ground is disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 1046/JPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Sept 2020AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Sh. Dileep Shivpuri (Advocate)For Respondent: Ms. Chanchal Meena (Add. CIT)
Section 147Section 148Section 234B

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1046/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2013-14 cuke Smt. Malti Khandelwal Income Tax Officer Vs. 8/175, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur Ward—4(2), Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AOBPK3921P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Dileep Shivpuri (Advocate) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Ms. Chancha…

Ravi Mohan Gehi, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 40, Mumbai

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

ITA 6238/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6238/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit Cen Cir 40, Ravi Mohan Gehi, Piramal Chambers B/6, Navkar Chambers, बिधम/ Mumbai Andheri Kurla Road, Vs. Pin- Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aeppg1674M (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant : Shri Pradip Kanasi, Ar By प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Michael, Dr Virtual Date Of Hearing 29.07.2020 : Date Of Pronouncement 16.09.2020 :

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Kanasi, AR byFor Respondent: Shri Michael, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153ASection 234BSection 57

…pendent inquiry and cannot just act on the direction of the other person: i. Rainee Singh, 125 TTJ 816 (Del.) ii. Atul Jain 212 CTR 42 (Del.) iii. George Williamson Ltd. 258 1TR 126 (Gau.) iv. Mahesh Gum & Oil Industries 292 ITR 397 (Raj.) v. Chuggamal Rajpal 79 ITR 603 (SC) vi. IBM World Trade Corp. 216 ITR 811 (Born.) vii. Bawa Abhay Singh 253 ITR 83 (Del.) viii. United Electrical Co.(P.) Ltd. 258 ITR 317 (Del.) ix. Ganga Saran & Sons. (P.) Ltd. 130 IFR 1 (SC) X. Hindustan Lever Ltd. 268 ITR 322 (Bom.) g. Your appellant very strongly submits that the entire addition made without any basis in the in the manner s…

D.C.I.T., Circle-5(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Sambuddha Tracon Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 181/KOL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Aug 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

Section 147Section 148Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA (Virtual Court) (Before Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member & Sri Aby T. Varkey, Judicial Member) I.T.A. No. 181/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11 DCIT, Circle-5(1), Kolkata................................................................................................Appellant Vs. M/s. Sambuddha Tracon Pvt. Ltd..………………..…...................................................Respondent [PAN: AAECS 4619 N] Appearances by: Sh. Vijay Shankar, CIT( DR), appeared on behalf of the Revenue. Sh. S.K. Tulsiyan, Adv., appeared on behalf of the Assessee. Date…

Jaee Vishwas Joshi, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Circle-21(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1028/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodjaee Vishwas Joshi Vs. Acit,Circle-21(1) 8Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan 1002, Om Co-Op.Housing Society Limited Bkc M.B.Raut Road Mumbai-400 051 Shivaji Park, Dadar Mumbai-400 028 Pan/Gir No.Aelpa7074L (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 144ASection 147Section 148

…Dhariya Construction Company (supreme Court) iv) CIT (Delhi) vs Kelvinator of India (SC) v) Akshar Builders vs ACIT,28(1), dated 17/01/2019 (Bom.) vi) Pr.CIT vs G &G Pharma Ltd., dated 08/10/2015 (Delhi High court) vii) Chhugamal Rajpal vs. SP Chaliha (1971) 79 ITR 603 viii) ACITvs Dhariya Construction Co. (2010) 328 ITR 515 ix) German Remedies vs Dy.CIT, dated 10/10/2015 (Bombay High Court) 9. As regards, additions made towards disallowances of business counseling charges, the Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the 20 Jaee Vishwas Joshi assessee has filed complete details of expenditure, including proof o…

Palaparthy Srilakshmi, Secunderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(1), Hyderabad

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 951/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jun 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi

For Appellant: Shri G.Kalyan Das, A.RFor Respondent: Sh. Kiran Katta, D.R
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

…apement of income and, therefore, the initiation of re-assessment proceedings itself is not proper. In support of this contention, he placed reliance upon the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chugamal Rajpal vs. S.P.Chalitha and others (1971) 79 ITR 603 (SC) and the decision of Co-Ordinate Bench at Mumbai in DCIT vs. M/s Kargwal Products P Ltd. In ITA No.1461/Mum/2017 dated 26.9.2018. 8. He further argued that the loss as returned by the assessee has been accepted by the CIT(A) and, therefore, the reason for which the assessment is reopened itself did not survive and therefore the assessment orde…

Nirmala Devi, Hisar vs. ITO Ward-03, Hisar

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2731/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishinirmala Devi Vs Ito House No. 8, Green Park, Hisar Ward-03 Haryana Pin: 125001 Ayakar Bhawan, Hisar Pan: Aappd3170P Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…spect such approval under section 151 of Income tax Act 1961 was mechanical and power was exercised casually and in a routine matter without application of mind in light of ratio decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chhugamal Rajpal vs S.P. Chaliha 79 ITR 603 (SC). And In the light of ratio decided by Jurisdiction Delhi High Court Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Meenakashi Overseas Private Limited Reported in [2017] 395 ITR 677 [DEL] 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, and the legal position the appellant has responded to all notices sent by Ld. A.O. and no reasonable opportu…

Jaswinder Kaur, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 45(5), New Delhi

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

ITA 8248/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2020AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Anil Bajaj, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

…cable binding judicial precedents and memorandum explaining Finance Act 2008. 4 5.1 That the Ld. AO including Ld. Pr. CIT in complete disregard to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court pronounced in the case of Chhugamal Rajpal v. S.P. Chaliha reported at 79 ITR 603 have accorded sanction for issuing notice under section 148. Thereby assumption of jurisdiction to reopen the assessment is non-est, the reassessment as made is invalid and liable to be quashed. 6. That the reassessment as made is without jurisdiction and without sanction of the relevant provisions of the Act including section 147, 148, 149 and 15…

Subodh Chandra Das, Hooghly vs. I.T.O., Ward-23(3), Hooghly

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2247/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble) Ita No. 2246 & 2247/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…ed assessment based on wrong facts and inferences. Such re-opening is bad in law. opening is bad in law. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chhugamal Rajpal Chhugamal Rajpal v. S.P. Chaliha reported in [1971] 79 ITR 603 (SC) 71] 79 ITR 603 (SC), has held as follows:- “When instant appeal came up for hearing on the last occasion, as the court found the affidavit filed by “When instant appeal came up for hearing on the last occasion, as the court found the affidavit filed by “When instant appeal came up for hearing on the last occasion, as the court found the affid…

Subodh Chandra Das, Hooghly vs. I.T.O., Ward-23(3), Hooghly

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2246/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Mar 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble) Ita No. 2246 & 2247/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…ed assessment based on wrong facts and inferences. Such re-opening is bad in law. opening is bad in law. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chhugamal Rajpal Chhugamal Rajpal v. S.P. Chaliha reported in [1971] 79 ITR 603 (SC) 71] 79 ITR 603 (SC), has held as follows:- “When instant appeal came up for hearing on the last occasion, as the court found the affidavit filed by “When instant appeal came up for hearing on the last occasion, as the court found the affidavit filed by “When instant appeal came up for hearing on the last occasion, as the court found the affid…

M/S Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust, Mysore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(4), Mysore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1764/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2

…ax Officer [133 ITR 199] has held that mere suspicion would not be sufficient for re-opening of the case unless there existed some other prima facie evidence to warrant reopening. [vi] The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chhugamal Rajpal V. S. P. Chaliha And Others [79 ITR 603 ] has held that : "Before issuing a notice under section 148, the Income-tax Officer must have either reasons to believe that by reason of the omission or failure on the part of the assessee to make a return under section 139 for any assessment year to the Income- tax Officer or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his ass…

M/S Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust, Mysore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(4), Mysore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1763/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2

…ax Officer [133 ITR 199] has held that mere suspicion would not be sufficient for re-opening of the case unless there existed some other prima facie evidence to warrant reopening. [vi] The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chhugamal Rajpal V. S. P. Chaliha And Others [79 ITR 603 ] has held that : "Before issuing a notice under section 148, the Income-tax Officer must have either reasons to believe that by reason of the omission or failure on the part of the assessee to make a return under section 139 for any assessment year to the Income- tax Officer or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his ass…

M/S Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust, Mysore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(4), Mysore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1762/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2

…ax Officer [133 ITR 199] has held that mere suspicion would not be sufficient for re-opening of the case unless there existed some other prima facie evidence to warrant reopening. [vi] The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chhugamal Rajpal V. S. P. Chaliha And Others [79 ITR 603 ] has held that : "Before issuing a notice under section 148, the Income-tax Officer must have either reasons to believe that by reason of the omission or failure on the part of the assessee to make a return under section 139 for any assessment year to the Income- tax Officer or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his ass…