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

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Chhugamal Rajpal v. S.P. Chaliha

Gorika Investment and Exports Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 10(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3396/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 3396/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 M/S Gorika Investment & Vs Income Tax Officer, Exports (P) Ltd., 531Sg Ward-10(2), Complex, Dc Chowk Market, New Delhi Sector-9, Rohini, Delhi-110085 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacg2462K Assessee By : Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv., Sh. Piyush Kumar Kamal, Adv. & Sh. Lalit Mohan, Ca Revenue By : Sh. B. R. Mishra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.06.2018 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 15.02.2018 Of Ld. Cit(A)-35, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. B. R. Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 234Section 68Section 69C

…td. 372 ITR 762 (Bom.) " M/s M. S. Software (P) Ltd. Vs ITO in ITA No. 2708/Del/2016 " Basesar Properties (P) Ltd. Vs ITO in ITA Nos. 5750 & 5751/Del/2016 order dated 18.08.2017 " Zikarpur Estate (P) Ltd. Vs ITO in " Chuugmal Rajpal Vs S.P. Chaliha reporte in 79 ITR 603 (SC) " Pr. CIT Vs N.C. Cables Ltd. in ITA No. 335/2015 order dated11.01.2017 7 Gorika Investment and Exports (P) Ltd. " M/s Meta Plast Engineering (P) Ltd. Vs ITO in ITA No. 5780/Del/2014 order dated 06.04.2018 " M/s Dhanuka Agritech Ltd. Vs ACIT in ITA No. 1003/Del/2014 order dated 11.05.2016 " Sunil Agarwal Vs ITO in ITA No. 988/Del/2018 order…

Shri Anil Singhal, Muzaffarnagar vs. ITO, Muzaffarnagar

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

ITA 2044/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.P. Jainassessment Year 2008-09 Anil Singhal C/O. Dinesh Vs. Ito, Mohan, Advocate, 2- Anand Ward-1(1) Vihar, Lane No. 1, Circular Muzaffarnagar Road, Muzaffarnagar Pan-Bksps7631E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Ankit Gupta, Adv Respondent By : Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04/10/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/10/2017 Order Per B.P. Jain, A.M. This Appeal Of The Assessee Arises From The Order Of Learned Cit(A), Muzaffarnagar, Vide Assessment Order Dated 24.01.2017 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. The Assessee Has Raised As Many Eleven Grounds Of Appeal & First Four Grounds Being Legal Which Have Been Pressed By The Assessee Are Reproduced Hereinbelow:- That The Notice Issued U/S 148 & Reassessment Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 1) 144 Are Illegal, Bad In Law & Without Jurisdiction. That, In View Of The Facts & Circumstances, No Satisfaction Is Recorded By 2) The Assessing Officer As Required U/S 147/148 Of The Act Prior Issuing The Notice Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. That, No Satisfaction Has Been Recorded By The Assessing Officer After 3) 2

For Appellant: Sh. Ankit Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148

…eedles Pvt. Ltd.) 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 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 to the conclusion that there were reasons to believe that income of the Assessee had escaped assessment.…