CIT v. Bhanji Lavji

79 ITR 582Supreme Court of India1971#1533 most cited

What is CIT v. Bhanji Lavji authority for?

Reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated based on a mere change of opinion by the Assessing Officer when the primary facts necessary for assessment are fully and truly disclosed. The assessee is not obligated to instruct the Income-tax Officer on questions of law, nor can reassessment commence if the AO drew a wrong legal inference from disclosed facts.

74

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Bhanji Lavji · 79 ITR 582 · Section 147 · Section 148 · change of opinion · reassessment proceedings · full and true disclosure · primary facts · duty to disclose law · wrong legal inference · 1961 Act · 1922 Act

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 142(1)Section 149Section 150Section 69C

Issues it is cited on

section 150(1)section 150(2)true and full disclosuresection 147(a)section 33(4)section 245hasection 150section 10(2)section 34(1)full and true disclosuresection 110test of enduring benefit

Judgments citing CIT v. Bhanji Lavji

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur vs. Usha Banka, Sikar

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 295/JPR/2025[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2025

…be held liable because of this remissness on the part of the Income-tax Officer in not applying the law contained in clause (c) of the proviso to section 10(2)(vi) of the Act of 1922. As observed by Shah J. in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bhanji Lavji [1971] 79 ITR 582 (SC), section 34(1)(a) of the Act of 1922 (corresponding to section 147(a) of the Act of 1961) does not cast a duty upon the assessee to instruct the Income-tax Officer on questions of law. It may also be mentioned that so far as the assessment for the assessment year 1957-58 is concerned, the assessment order was once rectified and at another tim…

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur vs. Subhash Chandra Banka, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 294/JPR/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2025

…be held liable because of this remissness on the part of the Income-tax Officer in not applying the law contained in clause (c) of the proviso to section 10(2)(vi) of the Act of 1922. As observed by Shah J. in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bhanji Lavji [1971] 79 ITR 582 (SC), 65 ITA No. 301 and others /JP/2025 & CO No. 2 and others-JP-2025 DCIT vs. Vaibhav Banka and others section 34(1)(a) of the Act of 1922 (corresponding to section 147(a) of the Act of 1961) does not cast a duty upon the assessee to instruct the Income-tax Officer on questions of law. It may also be mentioned that so far as the assessment for t…

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur vs. Subhash Chandra Banka, Sikar

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 293/JPR/2025[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2025

…be held liable because of this remissness on the part of the Income-tax Officer in not applying the law contained in clause (c) of the proviso to section 10(2)(vi) of the Act of 1922. As observed by Shah J. in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bhanji Lavji [1971] 79 ITR 582 (SC), section 34(1)(a) of the Act of 1922 (corresponding to section 147(a) of the Act of 1961) does not cast a duty upon the assessee to instruct the Income-tax Officer on questions of law. It may also be mentioned that so far as the assessment for the assessment year 1957-58 is concerned, the assessment order was once rectified and at another tim…

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur vs. Vipul Banka, Sikar

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 292/JPR/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2025

…be held liable because of this remissness on the part of the Income-tax Officer in not applying the law contained in clause (c) of the proviso to section 10(2)(vi) of the Act of 1922. As observed by Shah J. in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bhanji Lavji [1971] 79 ITR 582 (SC), section 34(1)(a) of the Act of 1922 (corresponding to section 147(a) of the Act of 1961) does not cast a duty upon the assessee to instruct the Income-tax Officer on questions of law. It may also be mentioned that so far as the assessment for the assessment year 1957-58 is concerned, the assessment order was once rectified and at another tim…

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur vs. Vipul Banka, Sikar

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

ITA 291/JPR/2025[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2025

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

…be held liable because of this remissness on the part of the Income-tax Officer in not applying the law contained in clause (c) of the proviso to section 10(2)(vi) of the Act of 1922. As observed by Shah J. in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bhanji Lavji [1971] 79 ITR 582 (SC), 65 ITA No. 301 and others /JP/2025 & CO No. 2 and others-JP-2025 DCIT vs. Vaibhav Banka and others section 34(1)(a) of the Act of 1922 (corresponding to section 147(a) of the Act of 1961) does not cast a duty upon the assessee to instruct the Income-tax Officer on questions of law. It may also be mentioned that so far as the assessment fo…

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur vs. Priya Dewan, Sikar

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 289/JPR/2025[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2025

…be held liable because of this remissness on the part of the Income-tax Officer in not applying the law contained in clause (c) of the proviso to section 10(2)(vi) of the Act of 1922. As observed by Shah J. in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bhanji Lavji [1971] 79 ITR 582 (SC), section 34(1)(a) of the Act of 1922 (corresponding to section 147(a) of the Act of 1961) does not cast a duty upon the assessee to instruct the Income-tax Officer on questions of law. It may also be mentioned that so far as the assessment for the assessment year 1957-58 is concerned, the assessment order was once rectified and at another tim…

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur vs. Priya Dewan, Sikar

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 288/JPR/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2025

…be held liable because of this remissness on the part of the Income-tax Officer in not applying the law contained in clause (c) of the proviso to section 10(2)(vi) of the Act of 1922. As observed by Shah J. in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bhanji Lavji [1971] 79 ITR 582 (SC), section 34(1)(a) of the Act of 1922 (corresponding to section 147(a) of the Act of 1961) does not cast a duty upon the assessee to instruct the Income-tax Officer on questions of law. It may also be mentioned that so far as the assessment for the assessment year 1957-58 is concerned, the assessment order was once rectified and at another tim…

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur vs. Animesh Agarwal, Sikar

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 290/JPR/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Jun 2025

…be held liable because of this remissness on the part of the Income-tax Officer in not applying the law contained in clause (c) of the proviso to section 10(2)(vi) of the Act of 1922. As observed by Shah J. in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bhanji Lavji [1971] 79 ITR 582 (SC), section 34(1)(a) of the Act of 1922 (corresponding to section 147(a) of the Act of 1961) does not cast a duty upon the assessee to instruct the Income-tax Officer on questions of law. It may also be mentioned that so far as the assessment for the assessment year 1957-58 is concerned, the assessment order was once rectified and at another tim…

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Kedia Builders and Colonizers Private Limited, Jaipur

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

ITA 901/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth RankaFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” 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, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos. 872 to 875 & 901/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2012-13 to 2016-17 cuke Income Tax Officer, Kedia Builders and Colonizers Vs. Jaipur Pvt. Ltd., A-6-10, Shyam Nagar, Benad Road, Nadi Ka Phatak Jhotwara, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAFCA 4547 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@…

Hewlett-Packard (India) Software Operation Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 405/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sri P.C. Kincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri A. Sreenivasa Rao, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 92C

…ng second thoughts on the same material and omission to draw the correct legal presumption during the original assessment do not warrant the initiation of proceeding u/s 147 of the Act. Further, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bhanji Lavji (1971) 79 ITR 582(SC) held that when the primary facts necessary for the assessment are fully and truly disclosed, the AO will not be entitled on change of opinion Hewlett-Packard (India) Software Operation Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 18 of 19 to commence proceedings for reassessment. Similarly, if he has raised a long legal inference from the facts disclosed, he wil…

Dalu Vasu Hiranandani, Mumbai vs. ITO (It) - 2(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1788/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Ruparel , AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 147(3)Section 24

…al assessment. Hence, it is clearly “Change of Opinion” as no new material came into possession of Department after the completion of original assessment. (b) Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Gujarat v/s. Bhanji Lavji (79 ITR 582(SC) and Nawab Mir Ali (97 ITR 239 (SC) has held that having second thought on same matrial is not permissible to reopen the assessment. (c) Section 147(3) clearly says that assessment cannot be reopened after 4 years, if there is no failure on the part of assessee. 8. In view of the above, the appeal of assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in…

M/S. Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Circle-1, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1333/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.1, Bidadi Industrial Area So Bidadi Acit Vs. Ramanagar Ltu, Circle-1 Bengaluru 562 109 Banalore Pan No : Aaact5415B Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Padam Chand Kincha, A.R. Respondent By : Smt. Kumutha D., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 24.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2024

For Appellant: Sri Padam Chand Kincha, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Kumutha D., D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234B(3)Section 250

…the same material, and omission to draw the correct legal presumption during original assessment do not warrant the initiation of a proceeding under section 147 of the I. Tax Act,1961. Further Hon’ble supreme court in the case of “ CIT Vs Bhanji Lavji [1971] 79 ITR 582 (SC) held that when the primary facts necessary for the assessment are fully and truly disclosed, the AO will not be entitled on change of opinion to commence proceedings for reassessment. Similarly if he has raised a wrong legal inference from the facts disclosed, he will not, on that account, be competent to commence reassessment proceedings. In…

Nova Estates Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 18(4), New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 76/DEL/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: The Ld. Ao & Despite Such Scrutiny No Addition Was Made In The Original Assessment Proceedings.

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

…the assessment due to change of opinion. Assessment proceedings were concluded after due consideration of all facts and material placed before him. In view of the judgments of ITO v. Techspan India (P) Ltd (2018) 404 ITR 10 (SC) and CIT vs Bhanji Lavji (1971) 79 ITR 582 (SC) reopening of assessment merely on change of opinion is bad in law. 6. That the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued without the proper sanction and approval as contemplated under the Act. 7. That the impugned order is liable to be set aside as the issuance of notice u/s 148 is bad in law. 8. That the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in affirmin…

DCIT, Circle - 3 (1), Trichy vs. M/S. Velmurugan Heavy Engineering Industries Pvt. Ltd., Trichy

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2329/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.2329 /Chny/2019 िनधा+रण वष+ /Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Velmurugan Heavy Tax, Vs. Engineering Industries Pvt. Circle-3 (1), Ltd., Trichy. No.E-65, Developed Plot Estate, Thuvakudi, Trichy-620 015. [Pan: Aaacv-3764-D]

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, C.AFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 148Section 263

…sessee to act his own AO and that the reassessment proceedings are more in nature of review and change of opinion. The ld. CIT(A) relied on 9 court decisions while disposing of the appeal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Bhanji Lavji [1971] 79 ITR 582 (SC) held that the mere change of opinion or wrong legal reference will not empower the Assessing Officer to reopen assessment. In our considered opinion, the ld. AO thought that certain areas were remained to be considered during the original assessment. If that was the case, then, revision proceeding was to be initiated by the competent auth…

M/S. Larsen & Tourbro Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2) & 5(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1009/MUM/2022[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Aby T Vakery & Shri Amarjit Singhlarsen & Toubro Ltd Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of L&T House, N M Marg Income Tax, Circle- (5)(4), Ballard Estate, Fort Mumbai (Erstwhile Mumbai- 400001 Income Tax Officer- 2(2) Room No. 1927, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri & MadhurFor Respondent: Shri Sushil K. Poddar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 250Section 35Section 80Section 801ASection 80I

…d complete disclosure of all material facts relating to the three issues as aforesaid, no reassessment proceedings can be initiated u/s 147. We wish to place reliance on the following judicial pronouncements to support our submissions. 1. CIT v Bhanji Lavji [79 ITR 582] [SC]: When the primary facts necessary for assessment are fully and truly disclosed, the ITO will not be entitled on change of opinion to commence proceeding for reassessment. Similarly, if he has raised a wrong legal inference from the facts disclosed, he will not, on that account, be competent to commence reassessment proceedings. 2. Century E…

Jt. CIT (Ods) - CC -1(4), Mumbai vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 222/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Bledeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd. Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) & M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle- 1(4) [Acit, Cc] Room. No 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, B-Wing, 2Nd Floor Pratishtha Bhavan Mahakali Caves Road Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 35D

…on upon the Assessing Officer to reopen the proceeding without anything further, the same would amount to giving a premium to an authority exercising quasi-judicial function to take benefit of its own wrong. 42. Further, as held in CIT v. Bhanji Lavji [1971] 79 ITR 582 (SC) that when the primary facts necessary for assessment are fully and truly disclosed, the ITO will not be entitled on change of opinion to commence proceedings for reassessment. Similarly, if he has raised a wrong legal inference from the facts disclosed, he will not, on that account, be competent to commence reassessment proceedings. Similar v…

Ultra Tech Cement Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT- CC 1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 220/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Bledeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd. Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) & M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle- 1(4) [Acit, Cc] Room. No 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, B-Wing, 2Nd Floor Pratishtha Bhavan Mahakali Caves Road Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 35D

…on upon the Assessing Officer to reopen the proceeding without anything further, the same would amount to giving a premium to an authority exercising quasi-judicial function to take benefit of its own wrong. 42. Further, as held in CIT v. Bhanji Lavji [1971] 79 ITR 582 (SC) that when the primary facts necessary for assessment are fully and truly disclosed, the ITO will not be entitled on change of opinion to commence proceedings for reassessment. Similarly, if he has raised a wrong legal inference from the facts disclosed, he will not, on that account, be competent to commence reassessment proceedings. Similar v…

DCIT Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1789/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Bledeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd. Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) & M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle- 1(4) [Acit, Cc] Room. No 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, B-Wing, 2Nd Floor Pratishtha Bhavan Mahakali Caves Road Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 35D

…on upon the Assessing Officer to reopen the proceeding without anything further, the same would amount to giving a premium to an authority exercising quasi-judicial function to take benefit of its own wrong. 42. Further, as held in CIT v. Bhanji Lavji [1971] 79 ITR 582 (SC) that when the primary facts necessary for assessment are fully and truly disclosed, the ITO will not be entitled on change of opinion to commence proceedings for reassessment. Similarly, if he has raised a wrong legal inference from the facts disclosed, he will not, on that account, be competent to commence reassessment proceedings. Similar v…

M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent Cir-1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1466/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Bledeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd. Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) & M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle- 1(4) [Acit, Cc] Room. No 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, B-Wing, 2Nd Floor Pratishtha Bhavan Mahakali Caves Road Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 35D

…on upon the Assessing Officer to reopen the proceeding without anything further, the same would amount to giving a premium to an authority exercising quasi-judicial function to take benefit of its own wrong. 42. Further, as held in CIT v. Bhanji Lavji [1971] 79 ITR 582 (SC) that when the primary facts necessary for assessment are fully and truly disclosed, the ITO will not be entitled on change of opinion to commence proceedings for reassessment. Similarly, if he has raised a wrong legal inference from the facts disclosed, he will not, on that account, be competent to commence reassessment proceedings. Similar v…

The ACIT, Circle-1, Surat vs. M/S. Micro Polyester Pvt. Ltd., Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2678/AHD/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 Apr 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) A.C.I.T., M/S Micro Polyster Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1, 2025, Jash Textile Market, Ring Vs. Surat. Road, Surat-395002. Pan No. Aabcm 6127 E Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee

Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 43B

…nt of CENVAT credit has taken the recourse of reassessment. By issuing notice under Section 148 on the facts which was already available during the regular assessment. The ld. CIT(A) while referring the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs Bhanji Lavji 79 ITR 582 (SC) held that when primary facts necessary for assessment are fully and truly disclosed, the Assessing Officer will not be entitled on change of opinion to commence the proceedings for reassessment. Similarly, in case of ITO Vs Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan Bahadur 97 ITR 239 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that having second thoughts on the sam…