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

Himalaya Distilleries Ltd., Sikkim vs. ITO, WD-3(1), Gangtok, Sikkim

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 758/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 757 & 758/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Himalaya Distilleries Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 3(1), Majitar Vs Gangtok Rangpo – 737136 [East Sikkim] [Pan : Aacch6217P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somanth Ghosh, A/R Revenue By : Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/03/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Instant Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Evenly Dt. 29/05/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) For Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14. 2. As The Issues Raised In Both These Appeals Of The Assessee Are Common, They Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By Way Of This Common Order. 3. Perusal Of The Grounds Of Appeal Indicate That Apart From The Grounds Raised On Merit, A Common Legal Ground Has Been Raised Challenging The Validity Of The Re-Assessment Proceedings On Account Of Wrong Assumption Of Jurisdiction U/S 147 Of The Act & That The Re-

For Appellant: Shri Somanth Ghosh, A/RFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 10Section 147Section 148Section 250

…assessment, he should have relevant material before him from which he could have drawn such conclusion. His vague imagination that there might have been some escapement of income from assessment is not sufficient [Chhuganimal Rajpal -vs- S. P. Chaliha (1971) 79 ITR 603 (SC)]. It is emphatically settled in this regard 8 I.T.A. No. 757 & 758/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Himalaya Distilleries Ltd. that there can be no manner of doubt that the words "reason to believe" suggest that the belief must be that of an honest and reasonable person based upon reasonable grounds and that the Assessing Officer…

Himalaya Distilleries Ltd., Sikim vs. ITO, WD-3(1), Gangtok, Sikim

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 757/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 757 & 758/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Himalaya Distilleries Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 3(1), Majitar Vs Gangtok Rangpo – 737136 [East Sikkim] [Pan : Aacch6217P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somanth Ghosh, A/R Revenue By : Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/03/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Instant Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Evenly Dt. 29/05/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) For Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14. 2. As The Issues Raised In Both These Appeals Of The Assessee Are Common, They Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By Way Of This Common Order. 3. Perusal Of The Grounds Of Appeal Indicate That Apart From The Grounds Raised On Merit, A Common Legal Ground Has Been Raised Challenging The Validity Of The Re-Assessment Proceedings On Account Of Wrong Assumption Of Jurisdiction U/S 147 Of The Act & That The Re-

For Appellant: Shri Somanth Ghosh, A/RFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 10Section 147Section 148Section 250

…assessment, he should have relevant material before him from which he could have drawn such conclusion. His vague imagination that there might have been some escapement of income from assessment is not sufficient [Chhuganimal Rajpal -vs- S. P. Chaliha (1971) 79 ITR 603 (SC)]. It is emphatically settled in this regard 8 I.T.A. No. 757 & 758/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Himalaya Distilleries Ltd. that there can be no manner of doubt that the words "reason to believe" suggest that the belief must be that of an honest and reasonable person based upon reasonable grounds and that the Assessing Officer…

Nisha Goel, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 52(3), Ward

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

ITA 2767/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 144Section 147Section 151

…ITAA.No.2767/Del/2023 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 NISHA GOEL, Vs. Income Tax Officer, DU-10, Pitampura, Ward 52(3), Delhi. Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi. PAN No. AIFPG0671A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, CA िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee by Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue by सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date of hearing: 31.05.2024 04.06.2024 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement on आदेश /O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD, J.M. This appea…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-19, New Delhi., Delhi vs. Sandeep Bajaj, Delhi

In the result, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is

ITA 2993/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 2(22)(e)Section 56

…which is the rationale for the safeguard of an approval by a higher ranking official, the finding of the Tribunal quashing the reassessment proceedings cannot be disturbed. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chhugamal Rajpal vs. S.P. Chaliha & Ors [1971] 79 ITR 603 (SC) has held that where the C.O. No.29/Del/2024 Dy.CIT vs. Sandeep Bajaj commissioner had mechanically recorded permission and the important safeguards provided in the section 147 and 151 were lightly treated by the officer and the commissioner, the notice issued u/s 148 was held as invalid. The The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case o…

Surinder Films(P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-3(1), Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1360/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1360/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Surinder Films (P) Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates Vs Circle-3(1), Kolkata Advocates Siddha Gibson 1, Gibson Lane Suite 213, 2Nd Floor Kolkata - 700069 [Pan : Aancs0075K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar Meena, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 23/11/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. (A) For That The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Upholding The Validity Of Re-Opening Proceedings U/S 147 Which Was Without Jurisdiction & As Such, Not Sustainable In The Eyes Of Law. (B) For That The Purported Approval Granted By The Principal Cit - 1, Kolkata U/S 151, If Any, Does Not Fulfill The Requirements Of Law Thereby Vitiating The Entire Proceedings. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Addition Made By The A.O. Of Rs. 30,00,000/- On Account Of Unsecured Loan Received From Mirabelle Tradecom Pvt Ltd. U/S 68. 2

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Meena, JCIT, Sr. D/R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68Section 69C

…under section 148 of the Act. Read in this light, what has been recorded by the Assessing Officer as his "reasons to believe" is nothing more than a report given by him to the Commissioner of Income-tax. As held by the Supreme Court in Chhugamal Rajpal [1971] 79 ITR 603. The submission of a report is not the same as recording of reasons to believe for issuing a notice. The Assessing Officer has clearly substituted form for substance and, therefore, the action of the respondent falls foul of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Chhugamal Rajpal [1971] 79 ITR 603 which is clearly applicable to the facts of the…

Lgw Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-13(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is stands allowed

ITA 846/KOL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Mar 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 147

…spect that the transaction was bogus. He therefore prayed that on suspicion no assessment could be reopened u/s 147/148 of the Act. The ld. AR relied on the judgement rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of (a) Chhugamal Rajpal vs S.P. Chaliha (1971) 79 ITR 603 (SC) (b) Sheo Nath Singh vs ACIT (1971) 82 ITR 147 (SC) wherein similar view was taken. 4. On the other ld. DR could not rebut the aforesaid factual contentions raised by the assessee. 5. We find force in the contention raised by the ld. counsel for the assessee. We find that the assessing officer has reopened the assessment merely based on the…

ITO 23(1)(6), Mumbai vs. Holiday Resort Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, Cross Objections under consideration filed by the Assessee are allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed being infructuous

ITA 2199/MUM/2023[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2024AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri.Narender Kumar Choudhry () & Shri S Rifaur Rahman ()

For Appellant: Shri. Piyush Chajjed
Section 148Section 151Section 151(1)Section 250

…g of the case u/s 147/148 of the Act and/or notice issued u/s 148 of the ACT and/or Assessment order passed in pursuance to such notice u/s 148 of the Act is sustainable or not ”. 5.1 The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chugamal Rajpal vs SP Chaliha (1971) 79 ITR 603 (SC) dealt with the situation wherein the Ld. Commissioner did not record himself that he was satisfied that this was a fit case for issue of notice under section 148 of the Act in Answer to question No.8, which was raised as under: - “Whether the Commissioner is satisfied that it is a fit case for the issue of notice under section 148, he just no…

ITO 23(1)(6), Mumbai vs. Holiday Resort Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, Cross Objections under consideration filed by the Assessee are allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed being infructuous

ITA 2198/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri.Narender Kumar Choudhry () & Shri S Rifaur Rahman ()

For Appellant: Shri. Piyush Chajjed
Section 148Section 151Section 151(1)Section 250

…g of the case u/s 147/148 of the Act and/or notice issued u/s 148 of the ACT and/or Assessment order passed in pursuance to such notice u/s 148 of the Act is sustainable or not ”. 5.1 The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chugamal Rajpal vs SP Chaliha (1971) 79 ITR 603 (SC) dealt with the situation wherein the Ld. Commissioner did not record himself that he was satisfied that this was a fit case for issue of notice under section 148 of the Act in Answer to question No.8, which was raised as under: - “Whether the Commissioner is satisfied that it is a fit case for the issue of notice under section 148, he just no…

Ashish Sharma, Gopal Pura Bye - Pass Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Statue Circle, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 586/JPR/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT) a
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 292BSection 69A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 586/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2009-10 Ashish Sharma cuke Income Tax Officer, 3-352, 10-B Scheme, Gopal Pura Vs. Ward-6(2), Jaipur. Bye-pass, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ARZPS 4723 L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv.) jktLo dh vk…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Guwahati vs. M/S. Linkstar Promoters (P) Ltd, Kolkata

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

ITA 9/GTY/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati25 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(3)Section 68

…to be valid. We would like to place reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Limited –vs.- ITO (1977) 106 ITR 1 (SC) as well as that in the case of Chhugamal Rajpal –vs.- SP Chaliha, ITO & Others (1971) 79 ITR 603 (SC) and that of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sarthak Securities Co. Pvt. Limited –vs.- ITO (2010) 329 ITR 110. We are of the view that the reassessment proceedings carried out under section 147 of the Act after the lapse of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year and there being no reason to believe that the 19 M/s…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Guwahati vs. M/S. Winner Dealtrade (P) Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 13/GTY/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati25 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(3)Section 68

…to be valid. We would like to place reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Limited –vs.- ITO (1977) 106 ITR 1 (SC) as well as that in the case of Chhugamal Rajpal –vs.- SP Chaliha, ITO & Others (1971) 79 ITR 603 (SC) and that of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sarthak Securities Co. Pvt. Limited –vs.- ITO (2010) 329 ITR 110. We are of the view that the reassessment proceedings carried out under section 147 of the Act after the lapse of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year and there being no reason to believe that the 19 M/s…

Vrushali Sanjay Shinde, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 1, Thane

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

ITA 198/MUM/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blevrushali Sanjay Shinde V. Dcit, Central Circle-1 282, Boundary Road B-101, Marigold, Prestige Residency G.B. Road, Kavesar, Thane- 400607 Civil Line, Meerut - 250001 Pan: Ajnps5211K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Sankalp Malik Department Represented By : Shri Shanti Subramanian

Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153C

…anical and is given on a dotted line, which vitiates the very purpose of the legislature in enacting section 153D itself. In this regard, the reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Chuggamal Rajpal vs. S.P. Chahila, (1971) 1 SCC 453 where a similar provision of approval, u/s 151 of the Act was discussed and the Hon'ble Apex Court while adjudicating the importance of the approval held as under: "Further the report submitted by him under Section 151(2) does not mention any reason for coming to the conclusion that it is a fit case for the issue of a notice under Section 148. We a…

Shri Digamber Jain Atikshaya Keshtra, Padampua vs. ITO Exemption Ward 1, Kailash Heights

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 424/JPR/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev sogani (C.A)&For Respondent: Ms. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 11(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 24Section 253(3)

…set of circumstances it was held that the sanction was granted without any application of mind and, therefore, the reopening is bad in law. Relevant extract has been set out for the sake of convenience: Supreme Court  Chhugamal Rajpal v. S.P. Chaliha [1971] 79 ITR 603 (SC) “.Further, the report submitted by him under section 151(2) does not mention any reason for coming to the conclusion that it is a fit case for the issue of a notice under section 148. 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…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Spirit Global Construction Pvt Ltd

The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms

ITA/191/2018HC Delhi18 Jul 2023

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147

…le, as reason to suspect is qualitatively different from reason to believe. The statutory [prerequisite] condition was not met by the AO before entering the realm of reassessment/assessment proceedings. [See Chuggamal Rajpal v S.P. Chaliha and Ors. (1971) 1 SCC 453, Synfonia Tradelinks Pvt. Ltd. v Income Tax Officer 2021 SCC Online Del 2692, ITO v Lakhmani Mewal Das 103 ITR 437]. 26.1 Since this is a consistent view that the courts have taken, we are not inclined to rule otherwise and interdict the decision of the Tribunal. Conclusion: 27. Given the foregoing discussion, the questions of law as fra…

Sh. Nirbhay Trehan, Jammu vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Jammu

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

ITA 184/ASR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 250

…itio. i. The AO has acted without jurisdiction, while reopening the assessment by recording false, irrelevant and arbitrary reasons and further supplying them while replying toassessee’ “objection to reasons recorded". ii.ln Chhuqamal Rajpal vs. S.P. Chaliha. 79 ITR 603 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the ITO had no material before him which could satisfy the requirements of either clause (a) or clause (b) of section 147 and that therefore, he could not have issued a notice under section 148. The provision of section 147 of the IT Act has been I.T.A. Nos. 182/Asr/2019 17 I.T.A. Nos. 183 & 184/Asr/2019…

Sh. Nirbhay Trehan, Jammu vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Jammu

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

ITA 183/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 250

…itio. i. The AO has acted without jurisdiction, while reopening the assessment by recording false, irrelevant and arbitrary reasons and further supplying them while replying toassessee’ “objection to reasons recorded". ii.ln Chhuqamal Rajpal vs. S.P. Chaliha. 79 ITR 603 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the ITO had no material before him which could satisfy the requirements of either clause (a) or clause (b) of section 147 and that therefore, he could not have issued a notice under section 148. The provision of section 147 of the IT Act has been I.T.A. Nos. 182/Asr/2019 17 I.T.A. Nos. 183 & 184/Asr/2019…

Smt. Bani Trehan, Jammu vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Jammu

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

ITA 182/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 250

…itio. i. The AO has acted without jurisdiction, while reopening the assessment by recording false, irrelevant and arbitrary reasons and further supplying them while replying toassessee’ “objection to reasons recorded". ii.ln Chhuqamal Rajpal vs. S.P. Chaliha. 79 ITR 603 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the ITO had no material before him which could satisfy the requirements of either clause (a) or clause (b) of section 147 and that therefore, he could not have issued a notice under section 148. The provision of section 147 of the IT Act has been I.T.A. Nos. 182/Asr/2019 17 I.T.A. Nos. 183 & 184/Asr/2019…

DCIT(Ltu) - 1, Mumbai vs. Acc Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3176/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 55A

…R has alternatively stated that approval given u/s. 151 without any reasons being recorded by Assessing Officer shows that approval was mechanical in nature and therefore, is invalid for which reliance was placed on decision of Chhugamal Rajpal v. SP Chaliha (79 ITR 603) (SC)and CIT v. Smt. Attri Devi [2005] 276 ITR 532 (Punjab & Haryana). The Ld.AR has further stated that reassessment proceedings to give effect to DVO's report is not sustainable in law for which reliance was placed on decision of ACIT v. Dhariya Construction Co. [(2010) 328 ITR 515 (SC)], Kamala Ojha v. ITO [(2017) 397 ITR 197 (Chattisgarh HC)]…

Acc Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT(Ltu) - 1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3136/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 55A

…R has alternatively stated that approval given u/s. 151 without any reasons being recorded by Assessing Officer shows that approval was mechanical in nature and therefore, is invalid for which reliance was placed on decision of Chhugamal Rajpal v. SP Chaliha (79 ITR 603) (SC)and CIT v. Smt. Attri Devi [2005] 276 ITR 532 (Punjab & Haryana). The Ld.AR has further stated that reassessment proceedings to give effect to DVO's report is not sustainable in law for which reliance was placed on decision of ACIT v. Dhariya Construction Co. [(2010) 328 ITR 515 (SC)], Kamala Ojha v. ITO [(2017) 397 ITR 197 (Chattisgarh HC)]…

Acc Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT(Ltu) - 1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3135/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 55A

…R has alternatively stated that approval given u/s. 151 without any reasons being recorded by Assessing Officer shows that approval was mechanical in nature and therefore, is invalid for which reliance was placed on decision of Chhugamal Rajpal v. SP Chaliha (79 ITR 603) (SC)and CIT v. Smt. Attri Devi [2005] 276 ITR 532 (Punjab & Haryana). The Ld.AR has further stated that reassessment proceedings to give effect to DVO's report is not sustainable in law for which reliance was placed on decision of ACIT v. Dhariya Construction Co. [(2010) 328 ITR 515 (SC)], Kamala Ojha v. ITO [(2017) 397 ITR 197 (Chattisgarh HC)]…