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

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 1766/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

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 1765/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

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 1761/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

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…

Asit Kumar Patra, Serampur vs. I.T.O., Ward-23(3), Hooghly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2206/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Feb 2020AY 2011-12
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151

…h is the rationale for the safeguard of an approval by a higher ranking officer. For these reasons, the Court is satisfied that the findings by the ITAT cannot be disturbed.” 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chhugamal Rajpal vs. S.P. Chaliha [1971] 79 ITR 603 (SC) has held as follows: “We are also of the opinion that the Commissioner has mechanically accorded permission. He did not himself record that he was satisfied that this was a fit case for the issue of a notice under section 148. To question No. 8 in the report which reads "Whether the Commissioner is satisfied that it is a fit case for the issu…

Price Waterhouse & Co., [Now Known As Price Waterhouse & Co. Chartered Accountants LLP], Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 22, Kolkata

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1985/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Vs. Dcit, Circle-22, Kolkata Price Waterhouse & Co, Kolkata (Now Versus Known As Price Waterhouse & Co Chartered Accountants Llp)

For Appellant: Shri C.S Agarwal, Sr. Adv., K.M. Gupta, Adv. & Bikash KumarFor Respondent: Dr. P. K. Srihari, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 28Section 44A

…erely to scrutinize the return of income which is impermissible. Provisions of section 147 of the Act cannot be resorted to, to verify or to make further enquiry, as held by the Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of Chhugamal Rajpal vs. S. P. Chaliha and Ors., 79 ITR 603 (SC). The assessee filed Return of Income u/s 139(1) of the Act, wherein the assessee has disclosed each item/issue and there is no tangible material before the AO to reopen assessment. In the absence of surfacing of any fresh tangible material, initiation of proceedings u/s 147 of the Act is without jurisdiction as held by Hon`ble Supreme Court i…

Shrimati Neetima Goyal, Ferozpur Cantt vs. Income Tax Officer, 3(2), Ferozpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal ground

ITA 184/ASR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar03 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri L.P. Sahu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.184/Asr/2018 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Neetima Goyal, Vs. Ito, Ward-3(2), Ferozepur Prop. Raghav Sales, G.T.Road, Ferozepur Cantt., Pin-152001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Panno. : Aicpg 3586 H (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri I.P.Bansal, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Charan Dass, Dr

For Appellant: Shri I.P.Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Charan Dass, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151(2)Section 44A

…s 151 should not be in a ritualistic or mechanical manner and there should be more than writing the sanction by word ‘approving’ or ‘yes satisfied’. For this purpose, the reliance is placed on the following decisions: - Chhugamal Rajpal Vs S.P. Chaliha H9711 79 ITR 603 (SC) Page 17 to 24 of case law compendium and the relevant observation are at page 24. The commissioner in the said case approved the reassessment just by writing ‘yes’ and it was held that reassessment proceedings invalid on that ground. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs Smt. Attri Devi [2005] 276 ITR 532 (Punjab & Haryana) In this case the Tribunal…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Circle) - 6(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Agarwal Textiles Industries P. Ltd., Mumbai

Accordingly, grounds raised by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 5298/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5298/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Dcit Cir 6(1)(1), M/S Agarwal Textiles R. No. 563, Industries Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Suit No. 226 Bussa बिधम/ M. K. Road, Industrial Premises Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Century Bazar Lane, Prabhadevi, Mumbai- 400 025 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aaaca3872F (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & C.O. No. 176/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S Agarwal Textiles Dcit Cir 6(1)(1), R. No. 563, Industries Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Suit No. 226 Bussa बिधम/ M. K. Road, Industrial Premises Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Century Bazar Lane, Prabhadevi, Mumbai- 400 025 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Anandi Varma, Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Mandar Vaidya, Ar

For Appellant: Shri Anandi Varma, DRFor Respondent: Shri Mandar Vaidya, AR
Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JM & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5298/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) DCIT Cir 6(1)(1), M/s Agarwal Textiles R. No. 563, Industries Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Suit No. 226 Bussa बिधम/ M. K. Road, Industrial Premises Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Century Bazar lane, Prabhadevi, Mumbai- 400 025 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN No. AAACA3872F (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & C.O. No. 176/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/s Agarwal Textiles DCIT Cir 6(1)(1), R. No. 563, Industri…

Behat Holdings Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-4(3), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed

ITA 8066/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Deepesh Jain, C.A. And Shri Arpit Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ved Prakash Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

…re, re-assessment order is invalid. In support of his contention, Learned 8 ITA.No.8066/Del./2019 M/s. Behat Holdings Ltd., Daryaganj, Central Delhi. Counsel for the Assessee relied upon the following decisions: 01. Chhugamal Rajpal vs., S.P. Chaliha [1971] 79 ITR 603 (SC) 02. CIT vs., M/s. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemicals Ltd., [2015] 231 Taxman 73 (MP). Department’s SLP Dismissed in [2016] 237 Taxman 378 (SC). 03. United Electrical Co. (P.) Ltd., [2002] 258 ITR 317 (Del.) 04. Yum Restaurants Asia Pte Ltd., vs., DDIT [2017] 397 ITR 665 (Del.) 05. Hirachand Kanuga vs., DCIT [2015] 68 SOT 205 {Mum.). 3.2. He has a…

Asit Kumar Patra, Serampur vs. I.T.O., Ward-23(3), Hooghly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1053/KOL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy]

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 156(3)Section 250

…h is the rationale for the safeguard of an approval by a higher ranking officer. For these reasons, the Court is satisfied that the findings by the ITAT cannot be disturbed.” 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chhugamal Rajpal vs. S.P. Chaliha [1971] 79 ITR 603 (SC) has held as follows: “We are also of the opinion that the Commissioner has mechanically accorded permission. He did not himself record that he was satisfied that this was a fit case for the issue of a notice under section 148. To question No. 8 in the report which reads "Whether the Commissioner is satisfied that it is a fit case for the iss…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Motors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3189/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 3189/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Income Tax Officer, Vs M/S S. Motors Pvt. Ltd., Ward-22(1), House No. 5, Block A-31, Main New Delhi Shastri Gali, Maujpur, New Delhi-110053 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaics1966J Assessee By : Sh. Deepak Ostwal, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.12.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.01.2020

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Ostwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151(2)

…l on record to show that the AO had applied an independent mind in forming a belief which may result in the required reason to believe as per the provisions of Section 147 and 148 of the Act. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chuggamal Rajpal vs. S.P. Chaliha 79 ITR 603 (SC) dealing with a case where the AO had received certain communications from the CIT showing that the alleged creditors of the assessee were name lenders and that the transactions were bogus. The AO came to the conclusion that there were reasons to believe that income of the assessee had escaped assessment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court disagreed an…

Surinder Kumar & Sons HUF, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 890/DEL/2012[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2019AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Raj Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 68Section 68oSection 69Section 69A

…hich means that it is only a probability. In support of his various contentions on this regard, he has relied upon the following judgments: “i) CIT vs. Multiplex Trading and Industrial Co. Ltd., (2015) 378 ITR 351 (Del.) ii) Chhugamal Raj Pal vs. ITO, (1971) 79 ITR 603 . iii) CIT vs. Atul Jain, (2009) 299 ITR 383 (Del.) iv) CIT vs. Pradeep Kumar Gupta (2008) 303 ITR 95 (Del.) v) Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE (2015) 281 CTR 241 (SC) vi) CIT vs. Sunita Dhada in SLP(C) Diary No.9432/2018 dated 28.03.2018. vii) ACIT vs. Dhariya Construction Co., (2010) 328 ITR 515 (SC). viii) PCIT vs. G&G Pharma India Ltd. (Del)…

Asst CIT 5(3)(2), Mumbai vs. World Trade Park Ltd, Jaipur

Accordingly, the ground raised by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1665/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1665, 1666 & 1667/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2012-13)

For Respondent: Shri Aseem Thakkar, AR
Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…pening cash in hand of Rs. 43,86,068/-, cash withdrawal of Rs. 82,54,762/- and booking advance of Rs. 1,84,50,000/- received during the year. Ld AR of the assessee by relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chug Mal Rajpal V. P Chaliha 79 ITR 603, wherein it was held that reassessment is not meant for enquiry and requested the reassessment proceedings be dropped. 7. After considering the submissions of the assessee and by relying in the case of Roshan D Hatti (107 ITR 938 (SC)), Kale Khan Mohammed Hanif (50 ITR 1 6 I.T.A. No. 1665, 1666 & 1667/Mum/2017 M/s World Trade Park Ltd (SC)), di…

Rajesh Ladhani, Faizabad vs. DCIT CC, Agra

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 106/AGR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra06 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaita No. 106,107 & 108/Agra/2019 Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2011-12 Vs. Dy. C.I.T. –Central Circle, Rajesh Ladhani, 259, Savera Bhawan, Ram Nagar Colony, Agra. Faizabad. Pan: Abapl5646C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153D

…to the assessee is Administrative in character and not quasi-judicial. The Agra Bench rejected the submission of the revenue, by preferring to place reliance upon subsequent Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Chhugamal Rajpal Vs S.P Chaliha’, 79 ITR 603(S.C) and therefore, in that case held Approval granted to be based on total non-application of mind. In this view of the matter since the issue raised in this appeal specifically stood dealt with by the Agra Bench in Ghanshyam (supra) in its right perspective, therefore, the contention raised by the revenue deserves to be rejected. Revenue has pla…

Anurag Mittal, Firozabad vs. DCIT Central Circle, Agra

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

ITA 136/AGR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra06 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 153ASection 153DSection 234A

…to the assessee is Administrative in character and not quasi-judicial. The Agra Bench rejected the submission of the revenue, by preferring to place reliance upon subsequent Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Chhugamal Rajpal Vs S.P Chaliha’, 79 ITR 603(S.C) and therefore, in that case held Approval granted to be based on total non-application of mind. In this view of the matter since the issue raised in this appeal specifically stood dealt with by the Agra Bench in Ghanshyam (supra) in its right perspective, therefore, the contention raised by the revenue deserves to be rejected. Revenue has pla…

Mrs. Renu Sehgal, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed and that of the

ITA 708/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 837/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2012-13 Cuke The Acit Smt. Renu Sehgal Vs. Central Circle-3 27, Onkar Nagar, Civil Lines Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aepps 3048 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 708 & 709 Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Cuke Mrs. Renu Sehgal The Dcit Vs. 227-278, Nemisagar Colony Central Circle-3, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aepps 3048 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Varinder Mehta, Cit-Dr Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri P.C. Parwal, Ca Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/08/2019 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 19/08/2019 Vkns'K@ Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Jm There Are Cross Appeals For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Directed Against The Order Dated 09-04-2013 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur. The 2 Smt. Renu Sehgal Vs Dcit, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta, CIT-DR fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 51Section 68

…h with the appellant. In such a situation, no credence can be given to his statement to hold the sale agreement as bogus or sham. 8.2 Here it is useful to refer to two judgments of Hon,ble Supreme Court in the cases of Chhugamal Rajpal v. S.P. Chaliha [1971] 79 ITR 603 (SC) and ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das [1976] 103 ITR 437 (SC). In Chhugamal Rajpal s case (supra) the ITO had initiated reassessment proceedings on the basis of a 'circular' issued from the office of the Commissioner, Bihar & Orissa, which stated that three persons named in that circular, were merely name-lenders and their transactions were bogus and…

M/S. Shree Sidhnath Enterprise, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Rajkot-Gujarat

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

ITA 172/RJT/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Jun 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.172/Rjt/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2006-2007 A.C.I.T, M/S Shree Sidhnath Enterprise, Central Circle-1, Vs. 8, Chokhawala Chambers, Rajkot. Bardan Gali, Danapith, Rajkot.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT (CONDUCTED THROUGH E-COURT AT AHMEDABAD) BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.172/RJT/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2006-2007 A.C.I.T, M/s Shree Sidhnath Enterprise, Central Circle-1, Vs. 8, Chokhawala Chambers, Rajkot. Bardan Gali, Danapith, Rajkot. PAN: AAKFS6892E (Applicant) (Respondent) : Assessee by Shri Vimal Desai, A.R : Revenue by Shri Jitender Kumar, CIT.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 18/06/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement: 25…

Time Media & Entertainment LLP (Earlier Time Media & Entertainment Private Limited), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 16(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 6534/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6534/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Time Media & Income Tax Officer- Entertainment Llp (Earlier 16(1)(5) Time Media & R.No. 439, 4 Th Floor, V. Entertainment Private Aayakar Bhavan, Ltd.) M.K Marg, 104, Rachna, V.P Road, Mumbai-400020 Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400056 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaact1581C (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Reepal G. Tralshawala Revenue By: Shri. D.G. Pansari (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 28.03.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.06.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 6534/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 31.07.2017, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”) In Appeal No. Cit(A)-4/It-89/Ito-16(1)(5)/2016-17, For Assessment Year 2010-11, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 30.03.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2010-11. I.T.A. No.6534/Mum/2017

For Appellant: Shri. Reepal G. TralshawalaFor Respondent: Shri. D.G. Pansari (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ansactions. For the same reasons, the decision of the Delhi High Court in Pr. CIT v. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd. [2017] 83 taxmann.com 348/249 Taxman 610/396 ITR 5 (Delhi) does not carry the petitioner's case further. 38. In Chhugumal Rajput v. S.P. Chaliha [1971] 79 ITR 603 (SC), the Supreme Court allowed the assessee's appeal on the finding that the ITO had not set out any reasons for coming to the conclusion that it was a fit case to issue notice under section 148. The material on the basis of which the proceedings had been initiated was not mentioned in the record. The reasons only referred to certain communicatio…

Uni Design Jewellery India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

In the result , appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 1159/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1158 & 1159/Mum/2018 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13) बिाम/ Uni Design Jewellery India Dcit-Central Circle 1(2) Private Ltd., Mumbai. Plot No. 3, V. Uni Design House, Cepz Wicel, Opp. Seepz Main Gate, Andheri(E), Mumbai-400093 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacu3940J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Rakesh Mohan Revenue By: Shri. Rejeev Gubgodra (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 03.04.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: These Two Appeals, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 1158 & 1159/Mum/2018 For Assessment Year(S) 2011-12 & 2012- 13 Respectively, Are Directed Against Separate Appellate Order(S) Both Dated 18.12.2017 In Appeal Number(S) Cit(A)-47/Ap.11663/16-17 & Cit(A)-47/Ap.11664/16-17 Respectively, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2011-12 & 2012-13 Respectively, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Separate Assessment Order(S) Both Dated 31.10.2016 Passed By

For Appellant: Shri. Rakesh MohanFor Respondent: Shri. Rejeev Gubgodra (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

…imited reported in (2012) 248 CTR 33(Delhi) b) Hon’ble Delhi High Court decision in the case of CIT v. SFIL Stock Broking Limited (2010) 325 ITR 285(Delhi) and c) Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Chuggamal Rajpal v. S.P.Chadha (1971) 79 ITR 603(SC) . 4.2 On merits , it was submitted by assessee before learned CIT(A) that the assessee has made purchases to the tune of 37,185.21 carats of cut and polished diamonds , the details of which were submitted by assessee before learned CIT(A) as under:- Sr Particulars Carats No. I, Opening Stock 9,806.73 2 Add: Purchases 37,185.21 V*- Less: Cons…

Uni Design Jewellery India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

In the result , appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 1158/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1158 & 1159/Mum/2018 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13) बिाम/ Uni Design Jewellery India Dcit-Central Circle 1(2) Private Ltd., Mumbai. Plot No. 3, V. Uni Design House, Cepz Wicel, Opp. Seepz Main Gate, Andheri(E), Mumbai-400093 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacu3940J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Rakesh Mohan Revenue By: Shri. Rejeev Gubgodra (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 03.04.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: These Two Appeals, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 1158 & 1159/Mum/2018 For Assessment Year(S) 2011-12 & 2012- 13 Respectively, Are Directed Against Separate Appellate Order(S) Both Dated 18.12.2017 In Appeal Number(S) Cit(A)-47/Ap.11663/16-17 & Cit(A)-47/Ap.11664/16-17 Respectively, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2011-12 & 2012-13 Respectively, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Separate Assessment Order(S) Both Dated 31.10.2016 Passed By

For Appellant: Shri. Rakesh MohanFor Respondent: Shri. Rejeev Gubgodra (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

…imited reported in (2012) 248 CTR 33(Delhi) b) Hon’ble Delhi High Court decision in the case of CIT v. SFIL Stock Broking Limited (2010) 325 ITR 285(Delhi) and c) Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Chuggamal Rajpal v. S.P.Chadha (1971) 79 ITR 603(SC) . 4.2 On merits , it was submitted by assessee before learned CIT(A) that the assessee has made purchases to the tune of 37,185.21 carats of cut and polished diamonds , the details of which were submitted by assessee before learned CIT(A) as under:- Sr Particulars Carats No. I, Opening Stock 9,806.73 2 Add: Purchases 37,185.21 V*- Less: Cons…

Raghav Technology P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-20(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 1144/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2009-10 Raghav Technology P. Ltd., Vs Ito, C/O Raj Kumar & Associates, Cas, Ward-20(4), L-7A (Lgf), South Extension Part 2, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aadcr5922J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Raj Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2019 Order

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68Section 69

…hen none of these aspects was considered by him, the approval granted suffers from non-application of mind and is liable to be quashed. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chhugamal Rajpal vs. S.P. Chaliha & Ors reported in 79 ITR 603 (SC), he submitted that when the important 4 safeguards provided in the provisions of section 147 and 151 are lightly treated by the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT, both of them appear to have taken the duty imposed on them under these provisions as of little importance. They have substituted the form for the substance. He also relied on th…