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 366,470 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

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Sahara India Mass Communication Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed as above

ITA 3130/DEL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…close the material facts necessary for the assessment. Hence, the Ld. Counsel argued that the reopening was bad in law. Reliance was placed upon the following decisions:  ACTT vs. Dhariya Construction Co. 328 TER 515 (NC)  Chhugamal Rajpal vs S.P. Chaliha: 79 ITR 603 (SC)  Amsa India Pvt. Ltd. vs CTT: 393 ITR 157 (Del HC) Sahara One Media & Entertainment. Ltd. 6.7 The Ld. Counsel contended that the AO had not applied his mind to the information received from the Investigation wing before reopening the assessment as evident from the reason for reopening the assessment. Our attention was invited to the decision…

Balithal Gram Seva Sahakari Samiti Limited, Tonk vs. Rjn-W-(107)(5), Tonk

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1306/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalbalithal Gram Seva Sahakari Samiti Limited, Balithal Uniara Tonk, 304024 Pan No.: Aabab4614R ...... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Mr. Hemang Gargieya, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234ASection 234FSection 250Section 80P

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, JAIPUR BEFORE Dr. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Balithal Gram Seva Sahakari Samiti Limited, Balithal Uniara Tonk, 304024 PAN No.: AABAB4614R ...... Appellant Vs. ITO,Ward Tonk ...... Respondent Appellant by : Mr. Hemang Gargieya, Adv., Ld. AR Respondent by : Mr. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT, Ld. Sr. DR Date of hearing : 21/05/2025 Date of pronouncement : 21/05/2025 O R D E R PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of NFAC, Delhi dated 05.09.2024 passed u/s. 250 o…

Bses Yamuna Power Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-5(1), New Del;Hi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal issues

ITA 4853/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalbses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Dy. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Asst. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Yamuna Power Dy. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. & Ors Vs. Acit Bses Yamuna Power Asst. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Sh. Deepesh Jain, Adv. & Sh. Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Mr. Javed Akhtar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/04/2025 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250

…DIT (International Taxation): 357 ITR 335 (Del.)] 54. It is also settled law that the assessing officer cannot reopen assessment to carry out verification or fishing and roving enquiries to establish escapement of income [Refer Chhugamal Rajpal v. SP Chaliha: 79 ITR 603 (SC), CIT v. Batra Bhatta Co. 321 ITR 526 (Del.), Digi Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT WP No. 1798 of 2022 (Bom.), Inductotherm (India) P. Ltd. vs. DCIT 356 IT'R 481 (Guj)). 55. In the present case, the reasons recorded by the assessing officer in the case of the assesses, it is respectfully submitted, do not constitute 'reasons to believe' which ca…

Bses Yamuna Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 5(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal issues

ITA 4852/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalbses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Dy. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Asst. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Yamuna Power Dy. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. & Ors Vs. Acit Bses Yamuna Power Asst. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Sh. Deepesh Jain, Adv. & Sh. Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Mr. Javed Akhtar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/04/2025 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250

…DIT (International Taxation): 357 ITR 335 (Del.)] 54. It is also settled law that the assessing officer cannot reopen assessment to carry out verification or fishing and roving enquiries to establish escapement of income [Refer Chhugamal Rajpal v. SP Chaliha: 79 ITR 603 (SC), CIT v. Batra Bhatta Co. 321 ITR 526 (Del.), Digi Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT WP No. 1798 of 2022 (Bom.), Inductotherm (India) P. Ltd. vs. DCIT 356 IT'R 481 (Guj)). 55. In the present case, the reasons recorded by the assessing officer in the case of the assesses, it is respectfully submitted, do not constitute 'reasons to believe' which ca…

Ajay Bakliwal, Kota vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1275/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Apr 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 129Section 132(1)Section 139Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

…entral India Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. ITO, (2011) 333 ITR 237, wherein it was opined that merely rubber stamping of “Yes” would suggest that the decision was taken in a mechanical manner. The Court further relied on Chhugamal Rajpal v. S.P. Chaliha, (1971) 1 SCC 453, wherein the Supreme Court refused to consider the affixing of signature along with the noting “Yes” as valid approval. It would also be pertinent to mention that the reasons for reopening, which ought to have been provided along with the notice u/s 148, were never made available to the assessee, even during the course of assessment u/s 153A. It is…

Sudha Surana, New Delhi vs. I.T.O., Ward - 61(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1372/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Apr 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Ito Ward-61(3) Bamboo Villa, Sudha Surana Central Revenue Building, C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, F-26/124, Sector 7, Rohini, Vs. New Delhi-110085 Kolkata-700014, West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Adepb5526F Assessee By : Dr. Kapil Goel, Ar Revenue By : Shri H. Robindro Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.04.2025

For Appellant: Dr. Kapil Goel, ARFor Respondent: Shri H. Robindro Singh, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JM ITO Ward-61(3) Bamboo villa, Sudha Surana Central Revenue Building, C/o Kapil Goel, Advocate, 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, F-26/124, Sector 7, Rohini, Vs. New Delhi-110085 Kolkata-700014, West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) PAN No. ADEPB5526F Assessee by : Dr. Kapil Goel, AR Revenue by : Shri H. Robindro Singh, DR Date of hearing: 06.02.2025 Date of pronouncement : 01.04.2025 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centr…

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1, Aurangbad vs. Sanjay Suganchand Kasliwal, Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1339/PUN/2024[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Mar 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1339/Pun/2024

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 271DSection 69D

…tem, was not a valid approval. This is because, it was not obtained from the authority provided u/s.151 of the Act. The notice u/s.148 of the Act also mentioned PCIT (Central), Pune as the sanctioning authority. (i) Chhugmal Rajpal as υ. S. P. Chaliha [(1971) 79 ITR 603 (SC)] (ii) German Remedies Ltd. v. DCIT -[(2006) 287 ITR 494 (Bom)) (iii) CIT υ. Suman Waman Chaudhary [(2010) 321 ITR 495 (Bom)] (ii) However, a copy of the sanction of PCIT(Central), Nagpur was supplied as Annexure -'2', along with the Remand Report, which was different from. This is different from a copy of the sanction provided during the asse…

Udaylal Hiralal Jain, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 20(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6306/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17 Udaylal Hiralal Jain Income-Tax Officer, Ward – Shop No.8, Bmc Bldg., 20(3)(1), R A Kidwai, Wadala, Vs. Mumbai Mumbai – 400 031

For Appellant: Shri Shashank Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151

…ing the action of the Ld. Assessing Offer of initiating the assessment u/s. 147 by obtaining a mere mechanical sanction u/s. 151 from JCIT 27(2) and thus violating the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chhugamal Rajpal v. SP Chaliha [1971] 79 ITR 603.” 3. At the outset, we note that ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal, by observing that despite providing many opportunities of being heard, assessee had remained non-compliant. Assessee did not bring any material fact on record in support of the grounds of appeal or to refute the findings of the ld. Assessing Officer. He thus, concluded that ther…

Income Tax Officer, Ayakar Bhavan vs. Sukaniya Properties Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 3711/MUM/2024[2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah & Mitali Parekh, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. D/R
Section 147Section 148Section 150(1)Section 150(2)Section 250Section 68

…gh Court in 231 Taxman 73, wherein revenue SLP was subsequently dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 237 Taxman 378. We also find similar view was expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chhugamal Rajpal vs. S.P.Chaliha & Others reported in 79 ITR 603 (SC) supra 12 आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL I.T.A. No. 3309/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 3711/Mum/2024 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had emphasised the fact that the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax granting mechanical permission by simply saying the words “yes” and affixing the signature in the prescribed proforma does not tant…

M/S. Sukaniya Properties, Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle -3(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 3309/MUM/2024[2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah & Mitali Parekh, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. D/R
Section 147Section 148Section 150(1)Section 150(2)Section 250Section 68

…gh Court in 231 Taxman 73, wherein revenue SLP was subsequently dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 237 Taxman 378. We also find similar view was expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chhugamal Rajpal vs. S.P.Chaliha & Others reported in 79 ITR 603 (SC) supra 12 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had emphasised the fact that the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax granting mechanical permission by simply saying the words “yes” and affixing the signature in the prescribed proforma does not tantamount to proper sanction in terms of Section 151 of the Act. In view of the aforesaid decisions of…

Income Tax Officer, Kautaliya Bhavan, Bkc vs. Rajnish Bharti HUF, Darukhana

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

ITA 4378/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: Mr. C.V. JainFor Respondent: Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

…al review of the issue which is yet to hatch through the re-assessment proceedings, cannot be accepted. I may refer to the following decisions of the Hon. Supreme Court in regard to the point at issue as under: a. In Chhugmal Raj Pal v. SP Chaliha &Ors (1971) 79 ITR 603 (SC), which was decided against the Revenue, the Apex Court has held that "AO must give reasons for issuing a notice under section 148. In other words, AO must have some prima facie grounds before him for taking recourse action under section 148." b. In ITO v. Selected Daluv Band Coal Co. (P) Ltd. (1996) 217 ITR 597 (SC), the Apex Court observed t…

Income Tax Officer 41(3)(3), Bkc vs. Rajnish Bharti HUF, Darukhana

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

ITA 4377/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: Mr. C.V. JainFor Respondent: Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

…al review of the issue which is yet to hatch through the re-assessment proceedings, cannot be accepted. I may refer to the following decisions of the Hon. Supreme Court in regard to the point at issue as under: a. In Chhugmal Raj Pal v. SP Chaliha &Ors (1971) 79 ITR 603 (SC), which was decided against the Revenue, the Apex Court has held that "AO must give reasons for issuing a notice under section 148. In other words, AO must have some prima facie grounds before him for taking recourse action under section 148." b. In ITO v. Selected Daluv Band Coal Co. (P) Ltd. (1996) 217 ITR 597 (SC), the Apex Court observed t…

Rajnish Bharti HUF, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer 20(3)(1), Mumbai, Lalbaug

In the result, both the appeals of the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed assessee are dismissed whereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 3941/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. C.V. Jain
Section 143(3)Section 148

…cisions of the Hon. Supreme Court in regard to ing decisions of the Hon. Supreme Court in regard to ing decisions of the Hon. Supreme Court in regard to the point at issue as under: the point at issue as under: a. In Chhugmal Raj Pal v. SP Chaliha &Ors (1971) 79 ITR 603 a. In Chhugmal Raj Pal v. SP Chaliha &Ors (1971) 79 ITR 603 a. In Chhugmal Raj Pal v. SP Chaliha &Ors (1971) 79 ITR 603 (SC), which was decided against the Revenue, the Apex Court (SC), which was decided against the Revenue, the Apex Court (SC), which was decided against the Revenue, the Apex Court has held that "AO must give reasons has held that…

Rajnish Bharti HUF, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer 20(3)(1), Mumbai, Lalbaug

In the result, both the appeals of the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed assessee are dismissed whereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 3912/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. C.V. Jain
Section 143(3)Section 148

…cisions of the Hon. Supreme Court in regard to ing decisions of the Hon. Supreme Court in regard to ing decisions of the Hon. Supreme Court in regard to the point at issue as under: the point at issue as under: a. In Chhugmal Raj Pal v. SP Chaliha &Ors (1971) 79 ITR 603 a. In Chhugmal Raj Pal v. SP Chaliha &Ors (1971) 79 ITR 603 a. In Chhugmal Raj Pal v. SP Chaliha &Ors (1971) 79 ITR 603 (SC), which was decided against the Revenue, the Apex Court (SC), which was decided against the Revenue, the Apex Court (SC), which was decided against the Revenue, the Apex Court has held that "AO must give reasons has held that…

Arun Bhardwaj, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1190/JPR/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jan 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250

…nning down a 'Yes' would be requisite satisfaction, as per Section 151 of the Act. N. C. Cables (supra) was relied on to find the approval to be not in consonance with the approval required under Section 151. ChhugamalRajpal v. S. P. Chaliha and Other; [1971] 79 ITR 603 (SC) was a case in which it was found that even the Income Tax Officer had not come to a prima facie conclusion that the loan transactions to which he 24 Arun Bhardwaj, Delhi. referred were not genuine transactions and he appeared to have entertained only a vague feeling that they might be bogus transactions, which conclusion did not fulfill the…

Viswanadh Kandula, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 1085/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1084 To 1088 & 1027/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2019-20) M/S Ace Tyres (P) Ltd Vs. Acit Hyderabad Central Circle 1(2) Pan:Aadca2210N Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V.Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese Six Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Six Separate Orders Dated 29/05/2025, 30/05/2025, 04/06/2025, 096/06/2025, 17/06/2025 & 14/07/2025 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Hyderabad Arising From The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act, Pursuant To The Search & Seizure Operations U/S 132 Of The Act, Dated 04/01/2023 In Case Of Exel Group Of Companies Including The Assessee For The A.Ys 2014-15 To 2019-20 Respectively. Since Common Issues Are Raised In These Group Of Six Appeals Arising From Same Facts & Search & Seizure Operation, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience, All Page 1 Of 78

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148BSection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151

…or expenditure or an entry/entries in the books of account of the assessee for any of the years under consideration. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Chhuganmal Rajpal vs. SP Chaliha (1971) 79 ITR 603 as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of P Munirathnam /Chetty and P. Satyanarayana Chetty vs. Income Tax Officer (1975) 101 ITR 385. Thus, the learned Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the exercising power u/s 151 of the Act in a casual and routine or mechanical manner without application of mind i…

Cosmic Informatics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle - 2, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2444/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

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

…fully submitted that mere charge that the expenses claimed is bogus is not sufficient to justify the fulfillment of condition set out in first proviso to section 147 of the Act, as has been held in the following decisions: - Chhugamal Rajpal vs. S.P. Chaliha 79 ITR 603 (SC) - Ganga Saran & Sons (P) Ltd vs. ITO: 130 ITR 1 (SC) - ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das: 103 ITR 437 (SC) - CIT vs. Foramer France: 264 ITR 566 (SC) - Rita Rajkumar Singh v. ACIT. [2022] 287 Taxman 413 (Bom) - Sunil Hanskrishna Khanna v. ACIT; [2022] 139 taxmann.com 555 (Bom) - Gateway Leasing (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT 426 ITR 228 (Bom.) - Priti Paras Sav…

Cosmic Informatics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle - 2, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2443/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

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

…fully submitted that mere charge that the expenses claimed is bogus is not sufficient to justify the fulfillment of condition set out in first proviso to section 147 of the Act, as has been held in the following decisions: - Chhugamal Rajpal vs. S.P. Chaliha 79 ITR 603 (SC) - Ganga Saran & Sons (P) Ltd vs. ITO: 130 ITR 1 (SC) - ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das: 103 ITR 437 (SC) - CIT vs. Foramer France: 264 ITR 566 (SC) - Rita Rajkumar Singh v. ACIT. [2022] 287 Taxman 413 (Bom) - Sunil Hanskrishna Khanna v. ACIT; [2022] 139 taxmann.com 555 (Bom) - Gateway Leasing (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT 426 ITR 228 (Bom.) - Priti Paras Sav…

Shahnaj, Near Bherudanji Well vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Income Tax Office

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 712/JODH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Dr Mitha Lal Meenasmt. Shanaj Vs The Ito W/O Shri Aslam Khan Ward-2, Churu, Near Bherudan Ji Well,Ward No. 22 Churu Sardarshahar,Churu – 331 403 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Fpmps 3570 D

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 50CSection 54F

…The belief relating to escapement of income should not be a product of imagination or speculation. There must be reason to induce the belief (80 ITR 467 — SC). The reopening should not be for investigations or finding out the probabilities of escaped income (79 ITR 603). In other words, the AO issued the notice u/s 148 only on suspicion. In other words, in the present case, the Ld. AO did not have any material, direct of circumstantial; to have any basis for his belief that income has escaped assessment. There was no concrete material at all in the possession of the AO to arrive at the conclusion that income has…

Nilesh Shamji Bharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the

ITA 5631/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailsmt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar BindalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…has taken a view that merely rubber stamping of "Yes" would suggest that the decision was taken in a mechanical manner. Paragraph 19 of the said decision is reproduced as under:-- "19. In respect of the first plea, if the judgments in Chhugamal Rajpal, (1971) 79 ITR 603 (SC), Chanchal Kumar Chatterjee, (1974) 93 ITR 130 (Cal) and Govinda Choudhury and Sons case, (1977) 109 ITR 370(Orissa) are examined, the absence of reasons by the Assessing Officer does not exist. This is so as along with the proforma, reasons set out by the Assessing Officer were, in fact, given. However, in the instant case, the manner in whic…