How many judgments cite Chhugamal Rajpal v. S.P. Chaliha?

363 judgments on BharatTax cite Chhugamal Rajpal v. S.P. Chaliha (79 ITR 603), spanning 2007 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Chhugamal Rajpal v. S.P. Chaliha come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 148, Section 147, Section 151, Section 143(3), Section 132, Section 142(1).

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

Issues it is cited on

section 147(a)sanctioning authority section 151(2)sanction under section 151 section 148(2)section 151(1)approval under section 151 material facts necessary for assessment section 158bg first proviso to section 147 live link section 149(1)(b)

Judgments citing Chhugamal Rajpal v. S.P. Chaliha

DCIT-4(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S.Setu Securities Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the cross –objection filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5705/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dy. Cit, 4(3)(2), M/S Setu Securities Pvt. Lt. Room No. 649, 6Th Vs. A/502, Shreyas Apartment, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 51/52, Tps Road, Boriwali Mumbai-400020. (West), Mumbai-400092. Pan No. Aagcs3919K Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 41/Mum/2019 (Ita No. 5705/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Setu Securities Pvt. Lt. Dy. Cit, 4(3)(2), A/502, Shreyas Apartment, Vs. Room No. 649, 6Th Floor, 51/52, Tps Road, Boriwali Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- (West), Mumbai-400092. 400020. Pan No. Aagcs3919K Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Satishchandra Rajore, Dr Assessee By : Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate & Mr. Rahul K. Hakani, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 11/03/2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/03/2019

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Mr. Satishchandra Rajore, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dy. CIT, 4(3)(2), M/s Setu Securities Pvt. Lt. Room No. 649, 6th Vs. A/502, Shreyas Apartment, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 51/52, TPS Road, Boriwali Mumbai-400020. (West), Mumbai-400092. PAN No. AAGCS3919K Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 41/MUM/2019 (ITA No. 5705/MUM/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s Setu Securities Pvt. Lt. Dy. CIT, 4(3)(2), A/502, Shreyas Apartment, Vs. Room No. 649, 6th Floor, 51/52, TPS Road, Boriwali Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- (Wes…

M/S Balaji Health Care Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4-3, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 566/JPR/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jan 2019AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri K.C. Meena (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

…ction was granted and notice was issued which further speaks of the quality of so called sanction which was granted by the ld. Add.CIT. In support, reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Chhugamal Rajpal Vs S.P. Chaliha (1971) 79 ITR 603, CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemical Ltd. 64 Taxmann.com 313 (SC) and decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of PCIT vs. N.C. Cables Ltd. 88 taxmann.com 649 besides various other High Courts and Coordinate Bench decisions. 6. On merits, it was submitted that the AO by placing sole reliance on the report of the Investigation Wing, New Delhi a…

M/S. Topchem (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 2364/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2004-05 Topchem (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, 39/2068, Naiwala, Ward-16(3), 315, Dakha Chamber, New Delhi. Karol Bagh, New Delhi. Pan: Aaact5718R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Deepak Ostwal, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Naina Sain Kapil, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2018 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11Th March, 2013 Of The Cit(A)-19, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2004-05. 2. The Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company & Is Engaged In The Business Of Dealing In Organic & Inorganic Chemicals & Provide Services In Various Fields. It Filed Original Return Of Income On 29Th October, 2004 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,520/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) On 29Th February, 2005. Subsequently, The Assessing Officer Issued Notices U/S 148 Of The It Act For Reopening

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Ostwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Naina Sain Kapil, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 151

…held as under:- “9. The Court at the outset proposes to recapitulate the jurisdictional requirement for reopening of the assessment under Section 147/148 of the Act by referring to two decisions of the Supreme Court. In Chhugamal Rajpal v. SP Chaliha (1971) 79 ITR 603, the Supreme Court was dealing with a case where the AO had 11 received certain communications from the Commissioner of Income Tax showing that the alleged creditors of the Assessee were “name-lenders and the transactions are bogus.” The AO came to the conclusion that there were reasons to believe that income of the Assessee had escaped assessment…

Dudheshwarnath Steels P.Ltd, Nvi Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-24(1), New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5397/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Pavan Ved, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr DR

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)

…he information transaction and how there was denied even under RTI.) was escapement of income. 8. Reopening was based on The information can at most be reason to suspect and not reason to suspect and cannot be ‘reason to believe’ SP Chalilha reason to believe 79 ITR 603 Supreme Court hence reopening is invalid. 6. Regarding various additions made by the AO, he has made his detail submissions, the summary of his argument are as under:- 9. Re. Addition of Rs. 1. The LAO must have 8,55,376/- for hawala mentioned the contents of letter transaction without any of DGIT before making the material justifying addition. a…

Dudheshwarnath Steels P.Ltd, Nvi Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-24(1), New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5395/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Pavan Ved, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr DR

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S. Angel Infrastructure Private Limited, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the

ITA 761/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta

Section 147Section 151

…(ii) CIT Vs. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemical Ltd. 231 Taxman 73 (MP), which has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 237 Taxman 378. (iii) Central India Electric Supply Co. Ltd. Vs ITO 333 ITR 237 (Del) (iv) Chhugamal Rajpal vs. S.P. Chaila & Ors. 79 ITR 603 (SC) Thus, the ld counsel has pleaded that in absence of compliance of Section 151 of the Act, the notice issued U/s 148 is invalid and liable to be quashed. 10. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR has submitted that all relevant material was before the ld. Pr.CIT at the time of granting of approval U/s 151 of the Act. The ld. CIT-DR has referred…

M/S Angel Infrastructure (P) Ltd., Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the

ITA 464/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta

Section 147Section 151

Sushil Bansal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 57(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 4441/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69C

…ped assessment. 35.9. The decisions of this Court and other Courts to the extent inconsistent with the above decisions of the Supreme Court cannot be said to reflect the correct legal position. ” 15. Moreover, in the case of Chhugamal Rajpal vs. S P Chaliha 79 ITR 603 the information was indeed vague, since neither the amount nor the particular transaction which was alleged to be bogus was pointed out by the Assessing Officer. In the present case, the specific name of the student his Batch No. and amount is clearly available. Many parents out of the list supplied by Mr. Mahalingam have accepted having paid the…

Achla Dhawan vs. Income Tax Officer

The appeal of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2165/DEL/2008[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2018AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri S. K. Yadav & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, Sr. D. R

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…hla Dhawan, Meerut. 20 215 (Del). 12. Any message which is vague and impertinent cannot be the basis for the formation by the Assessing Officer of the belief for escapement of income. The decision of the apex court in Chhugamal Rajpal vs. S.P. Chaliha (1971) 79 ITR 603 (SC) may be adverted to in this context to hold that a mere message without a foundational support cannot the pivot for the satisfaction to rest. 13. The Assessing Officer has treated the message as conveyed by the Addl. Director (Investigation) as the gospel truth without carrying out any verification at his end. No corroboration was sought from…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Shri Sajjan Kumar Goel, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 850/DEL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Aug 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2003-04

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT, D.R

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…eds to be exercised with due care and circumspection and after due application of mind. Mechanical manner of giving sanction like in 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 do…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jrd Stock Brokers (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stand allowed whereas

ITA 252/DEL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. G.D. Agrawal & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavaito Jrd Stock Brokers (P) Ward-4(2), Room No. 413A, Ltd. C.R.Building, I.P.Estate 4852/24, First Floor, New Delhi Ansari Road, Darya Ganj Vs. New Delhi Pan : Aabcj0701D Pan : (Appellant) (Respondent) Jrd Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. Ito 4852/24, First Floor, Ward-4(2), Room No. Ansari Road, Darya Ganj 413A, New Delhi C.R.Building, I.P.Estate Vs. Pan : Aabcj0701D New Delhi Pan : (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. R.S.Singhvi, Sh. Satyajeet Goel, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Jain, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…e Act as under:- “9. The Court at the outset proposes to recapitulate the jurisdictional requirement for reopening of the assessment under Section 147/148 of the Act by referring to two decisions of the Supreme Court. In Chhugamal Rajpal v. SP Chaliha (1971) 79 ITR 603, the Supreme Court was dealing with a case where the AO had received certain communications from the Commissioner of Income Tax showing that the alleged creditors of the Assessee were “name-lenders and the transactions are bogus.” The AO came to the conclusion that there were reasons to believe that income of the Assessee had escaped assessment. T…

M/S. Jrd Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stand allowed whereas

ITA 1002/DEL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2018AY 2003-04

For Appellant: Sh. R.S.Singhvi, Sh. Satyajeet Goel, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Jain, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

ACIT, Circle- 5(2), New Delhi vs. Century Metal Recycling Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and Cross Objection filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 6657/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri T.S. Kapooray: 2009-10 Acit, Circle-5(2), M/S Century Metal New Delhi Vs. Recycling Pvt. Ltd., W-5/6, Western Avenue, Sainik Farm, New Delhi – 110 080 (Pan: Aaacb3682J) (Assessee) (Respondent) & C.O. No. 36/Del/2018 (In Ita No. 6657/Del/2017) Ay: 2009-10 M/S Century Metal Acit, Circle-5(2), Recycling Pvt. Ltd., Vs. New Delhi W-5/6, Western Avenue, Sainik Farm, New Delhi – 110 080 (Pan: Aaacb3682J) (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv., ShFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh,CIT(DR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…T 2017 TIOL 253 SC-IT 7 Apart from the above, the ld. AR contended that even the approval granted was mechanical and therefore not valid. Reliance was placed on the following judgments: i) ITA No. 335/2015 dated 11.1.2017 (Del) Pr. CIT v. N.C. Cables Ltd. ii) 79 ITR 603 (SC) Chugamal Rajpal v. S.P. Chalihan and others 8 We have heard both the parties and perused the records, especially the orders of the authorities below and the case laws referred by both the parties. We find that in the instant case original assessment was framed on 02.05.2011 u/s 143(3) of the Act. Subsequently reasons were recorded on 31.3.201…

Shri Ajay Wahi, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

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

ITA 336/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Dilip Shivpuri (Advocate)For Respondent: Smt. Seema Meena (JCIT)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…e said decision of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 237 Taxman 378 (SC). The ld. A/R has also placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chuggamal Rajpal vs. S.P. Chaliha, 79 ITR 603 (SC) and submitted that the Apex Court has held that if the sanctioning authority has read the report carefully, he would have never come to the conclusion on the material before him that this is a fit case to issue notice under section 148. Therefore, merely writing ‘Yes’ and affixing his signature on the approval application/form does not sh…

Avnindra Mishra, Mathura vs. ITO-1(3)(1), Mathura

The appeal is allowed

ITA 441/AGR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra05 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

Section 148Section 151

…’, in ITA No.2421/Del/2017. 4. 6. On the other hand, the ld. DR has placed strong reliance on the approval granted by the Pr. CIT. The following decisions have been relied on: ‘S. Narayanappa vs. CIT’, 63 ITR 219 (SC). i. ‘Chhugamal Rajpal vs. S.P. Chaliha’, 79 ITR 603 (SC). ii. ‘CIT vs. M/s G.S. Tiwari and Co.’, 38 taxman.com 259 (All). iii. ‘M/s Ginni Filaments vs. CIT’, Writ Tax No. 1402 of 2004 iv. (All. H.C.) ‘Sushrut Institute of Plastic Surgery vs. Dy. CIT’, Misc. Bench v. No 219 of 2014 (All. H.C.) ‘Sanjay DCIT’, vi. Kumar Agarwal, HUF vs. ITA No.290/Agra/2010 (ITAT-Agra). ‘ITO vs. Purushottam Das Bangur…

M/S. Cygnus Developers (India) Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 3(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2288/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, A.M & Shri A. T. Varkey, J.M]

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

…eeds to be exercised with due care and circumspection and after due application of mind. Mechanical manner of giving sanction like in 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, as discussed above, we are not satisfied that AO had any material before him which satisfies the requirements of section 147. Therefore, AO could not have issued notice u/s 148. Further, the report submitt…

Anita Yadav, Mathura vs. ITO -1(3)(1), Mathura

The appeal is allowed

ITA 422/AGR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

Section 148Section 151

Bijendra Kumar, Mathura vs. ITO-1(3)(1), Mathura

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 409/AGR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra03 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

Section 147Section 148Section 151

…T.A Nos.409 & 419/Agra/2017 4 6. On the other hand, the ld. DR has placed strong reliance on the approval granted by the Pr. CIT. The following decisions have been relied on: ‘S. Narayanappa vs. CIT’, 63 ITR 219 (SC). i. ‘Chhugamal Rajpal vs. S.P. Chaliha’, 79 ITR 603 (SC). ii. ‘CIT vs. M/s G.S. Tiwari and Co.’, 38 taxman.com 259 (All). iii. ‘M/s Ginni Filaments vs. CIT’, Writ Tax No. 1402 of 2004 iv. (All. H.C.) ‘Sushrut Institute of Plastic Surgery vs. Dy. CIT’, Misc. Bench v. No 219 of 2014 (All. H.C.) ‘Sanjay DCIT’, vi. Kumar Agarwal, HUF vs. ITA No.290/Agra/2010 (ITAT-Agra). ‘ITO vs. Purushottam Das Bangur…

DCIT, Central Circle - 2(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. M D Garments Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross- objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2146/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am] I.T.A. No. 2146/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 D.C.I.T, Central Cir – 2(1) Kolkata.........................................................................Appellant 3Rd Floor,Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, E.M. By Pass, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700107 M/S. M.D. Garments Pvt. Ltd. …………………………………………………………………Respondent 156, M.G. Road, 1St Floor, Kolkata – 700 007 [Pan : Aadcm 5555 C] C.O. No. 38/Kol/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 2146/Kol/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. M.D. Garments Pvt. Ltd. ……………………………………………………………Cross-Objector 156, M.G. Road, 1St Floor, Kolkata – 700 007 [Pan : Aadcm 5555 C] D.C.I.T, Central Cir – 2(1) Kolkata....................................................................Respondent 3Rd Floor,Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, E.M. By Pass, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700107 Appearances By: Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue Shri R.P. Agarwal, Sr. Counsel & Shri Nirav Sheth, Aca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 25, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 20, 2018 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (A) – 20, Kolkata Dated 18.07.2017 & The Same Is Being Disposed Of Along With The Cross-Objection Filed By The Assessee Being C.O. No. 38/Kol/2018. 2 I.T.A. No. 2146/Kol/2017 & C.O. No. 38/Kol/2018 Assessment Year 2009-10 M/S. M.D. Garments Pvt. Ltd.

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…n Needles Pvt. Ltd.). The court at the outset proposes to recapitulate the jurisdictional requirement for reopening of the assessment under section 147/148 of the Act by referring to two decisions of the Supreme Court. In Chhugamal Rajpal vs SP Chaliha (1971) 79 ITR 603, the Supreme Court was dealing with a case where the AO had received certain communications from the Commissioner of Income Tax showing that the alleged creditors of the assessee were name-lenders and the transactions are bogus. The AO came 9 I.T.A. No. 2146/Kol/2017 & C.O. No. 38/Kol/2018 Assessment Year 2009-10 M/s. M.D. Garments Pvt. Ltd.…

Ghanshyam, Mathura vs. ITO 3(2), Mathura

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 238/AGR/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

Section 147Section 148Section 151

…TA No.2421/Del/2017. 4. 6. On the other hand, the ld. DR has placed strong reliance on the approval granted by the Additional CIT. The following decisions have been relied on: ‘S. Narayanappa vs. CIT’, 63 ITR 219 (SC). i. ‘Chhugamal Rajpal vs. S.P. Chaliha’, 79 ITR 603 (SC). ii. ‘CIT vs. M/s G.S. Tiwari and Co.’, 38 taxman.com 259 (All). iii. ‘M/s Ginni Filaments vs. CIT’, Writ Tax No. 1402 of 2004 iv. (All. H.C.) I.T.A No. 238/Agra/2018 5 & I.T.A No. 129/Agra/2018 ‘Sushrut Institute of Plastic Surgery vs. Dy. CIT’, Misc. Bench v. No 219 of 2014 (All. H.C.) ‘Sanjay DCIT’, vi. Kumar Agarwal, HUF vs. ITA No.290/A…