CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd.

331 ITR 236High Court2011#78 most cited

What is CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. authority for?

The Assessing Officer loses jurisdiction and the entire reassessment becomes invalid if no addition is made in respect of the income that formed the basis of the reopening. Explanation 3 to Section 147 does not permit assessing other escaped income unless an addition is made for the original income forming the reason to believe.

694

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 383,853 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Jet Airways · Section 147 · Section 148 · reassessment jurisdiction · income escaping assessment · reason to believe · Explanation 3 · scope of reassessment · additions beyond initial reasons · invalid reassessment · 331 ITR 236

Also reported as

30 Taxmann.com 1239 CTR 183

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 234BSection 151Section 271(1)(c)Section 145(3)

Issues it is cited on

section 2(40)section 148(2)reason to believeincome escaping assessmentescapement of incomelive linktangible materialrejection of books of accountreopening of assessmentinterest under section 234bsection 254(1)change of opinion

Judgments citing CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd.

Idbi Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT (Ltu)-2, Mumbai

In the result this ground of appeal is

ITA 3423/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singh

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

…d under section 147/143(3), on the basis of reasons given in notice under section 148, the entire reopening fails. In support of his submission the learned AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Bombay High Court in case of Jet Airways (I) Limited (331 ITR 236 Bom). 3. On merits the learned AR for the assessee submits that on the applicability of provisions of section 115JB, similar issue was decided by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Union Bank of India in ITA No. 1196 of 2013 dated 16th April 2019 and by Mumbai Tribunal in assessee’s own IDBI Bank Ltd (AY’s 2008-09, 2011-12 to 2013-14) case f…

Raju Manilal Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 13(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 753/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Singh
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 74

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER : A.Y : 2010-11 Raju Manilal Shah Vs. ITO, Ward-13(1)(1), (Prop. M/s. Indo Foreign Mumbai. (Respondent) Hardware Store) 193, Nagdevi Street, Mumbai 400 003. PAN : AADPS9224M (Appellant) Appellant by : Shri Vijay Mehta Respondent by : Shri M.K. Singh Date of Hearing : 28/06/2019 Date of Pronouncement : 20/08/2019 O R D E R PER G.S. PANNU, VICE PRESIDENT The captioned appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A)-28, Mumbai dated 11.11.2…

Adity Dalmiya, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 17(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4868/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya () & Shri Pawan Singh () Aditya Dalmiya Vs Ito-17(1)(1), Mumbai 36, 5Th Floor, Vishnu Mahal D Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Pan : Aclpd1591Q Appellant Respondednt Appellant By Shri Biren Gabhawala Respondent By Shri Chaitanya Anjaria

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)Section 3

…rt of his submissions the ld AR for the assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Labratories Ltd vs CIT (ITA No.148/2008 dated 03-06-2011) and the decision of jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs Jet Airways (I) Ltd 331 ITR 236 (Bom). 6. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the revenue supported the orders of lower authorities. The Ld. DR submits that the AO was right and justified in making addition on deemed dividend after being satisfied on the issue on which assessment was reopened and proceeded to take the other issues which came to his notice subsequently. 8 ITA…

Oasis Securities Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 4561/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am)

Section 147Section 14A

…ended that the Assessing Officer cannot make addition u/s. 14A since the issue on which reopening was done, no disallowance was made therein. In this connection, the assessee also referred to Hon'ble Bombay High Court decision in the case of Jet Airways Ltd. (331 ITR 236) and in the case of ICICI Bank Ltd. (349 ITR 482). Considering the aforesaid case laws, learned CIT(A) concluded as under :- In the instant case, it is observed that the assessment in the case of the assessee was reopened on the ground that the loan advanced by the assessee to Shri Vivek Mehrotra of Rs. 102.02 crores is of the nature of an accomm…

Echjay Industries P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 45, Mumbai

Appeals are allowed

ITA 5245/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Assessment Year :2006-07) Assessment Year :2010-11) Assessment Year :2011-12) Assessment Year :2012-13) Assessment Year :2013-14) Assessment Year :2014-15) Assessment Year :2010-11) & Assessment Year :2012-13) M/S. Echjay Industries Pvt. Ltd. M/S. Echjay Industries Pvt. Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, Central Circle- 83, Bajaj Bhavan 45,/Dy.Commissioner Of Nariman Point Income Tax-Circle 8(2) Mumbai – 400 023 Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No. : Aaace1157B (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N.R. RaoFor Respondent: Shri Sachchidanand Dube
Section 143(3)Section 147

…on which reopening was made fails. The formation of belief on the part of the ld AO fails. Reliance in this regard has been rightly placed by the ld AR on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Jet Airways (I) Ltd reported in 331 ITR 236 (Bom) wherein it was observed that if no addition is made M/s. Echjay Industries Pvt. Ltd. on the issue of reasons recorded, but reassessment is completed making some other additions not recorded in the reasons, then the reasessment is to be declared invalid as the basic premise of satisfaction of the ld AO in forming the belief that income had e…

Vijay Vasant Sathe, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 3(4), Pune

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1588/PUN/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri D.R. BarveFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Verma
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 69

…rther no addition was made on capital gains for which the Revenue had originally issued notice u/s 148 of the Act. He therefore placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jet Airways India Limited reported in (2011) 331 ITR 236 and the decision of Pune Tribunal in the case of Smt. Madhuri Dhananjay Marathe Vs. ITO (ITA Nos.1639 & 1640/PUN/2017 dated 30.08.2018) submitted that when no addition has been made on the ground on which the reasons were recorded u/s 148 of the Act then AO could not make addition on some other issues. He therefore submitted that the order of…

Amit G. Vanani, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 4569/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 4569/Mum/2017 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2007-08) Shri Amit G. Vanani, The Dy. Commissioner Of 112, The Jewel, Tata Road Income Tax, Circle-4(4), No. 2, Opera House, Mumbai- Room No. 409, 4Th Floor, Vs. 400 004 Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aaipv6300L अपीलाथी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri B.V. Jhaveri, Ar प्रत्यथी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri B.S. Bist, Dr ुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 08-05-2019 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 08-05-2019

For Appellant: Shri B.V. Jhaveri, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Bist, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ceived from the M/s Mayank Impex, which was never the reason for reopening of the assessment. On this proposition also, we find that this issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.), wherein it is held that section 147 of the Act has this effect that the AO has to assess or reassess the income ("such income") which escaped assessment and which was the basis of the formation of belief and if he does so, he can also assess or reassess any other income which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice during the…

DCIT, Circle-12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Dotex Merchandise Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objections are also dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1602/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…Division Bench had also examined Explanation 3 to Section 147, which was inserted by Finance (No. 2) Act of 2009 with retrospective effect from 1st April, 1989. Reference was made to the decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd., [2011] 331 ITR 236/[2010] 195 Taxman 117 in which it has been held as under: "The effect of section 147 as it now stands after the amendment of 2009 can, therefore, be summarised as follows : (i) the Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year ; (ii) upon the formation of that belie…

Shri Badri Narayan Choudhary C/O Ashish Khandelwal & Associates G-2, Arihant Tower-II, Opp. Bsnl Telephone Exchange, Sanganeri Gate, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4(1), Jaipur, Ward-4(1)

In the result, the same are treated as infructious and not adjudicated upon

ITA 283/JPR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Apr 2019AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Ashish Khandelwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Anuradha (JCIT)
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148

…fficer comes to an end and even the rigors of explanation no. 3 to Section 147 of the Act cannot be save the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer. In support, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Jet Airways 331 ITR 236 where the decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT vs. Shri Ram Singh 306 ITR 343 has also been followed. It was accordingly submitted that in view of the factual matrix of the case and the binding judicial precedents where the alleged income in respect of which the notice has been issued U/s 148 of the Act was found non-existe…

Shri Nirmal Chandra Ojha, Balasore vs. ITO, Ward-1, Balasore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 95/CTK/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargआयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.95/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Sri Nirmal Chandra Ojha, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Balasore, At: Mobarakpur, Soro, Balasore Dist: Balasore-756045 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Asvpk 7004 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/04/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 05/04/2019 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Cuttack, Dated 23.01.2019 Passed In First Appeal No.0327/2015-16 For The Assessment Year 2011-2012. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Read As Follows:- 1. For That, The Impugned Order Of Reassessment So Passed By The Learned A.O. Is Premature, Without Jurisdiction & Without The Authority Of Law, As Such, The Same Needs To Be Quashed In The Interest Of Justice. 2. For That, The Learned C.I.T.(A) Should Have Quashed The Impugned Order Of Reassessment, Particularly When, The Same Is Without Jurisdiction, As Such The Impugned Order Of Reassessment, Being Not Sustainable In The Eye Of Law Is Liable To Be Quashed In The Interest Of Justice. 3. For That, The Learned C.I.T.(A) Should Not Have Ignored The Explanation As Well As The Cash Flow Statement & Capital Account Furnished By The Appellant & Should Not Have Confirmed The Addition Made By The Learned A.O., Treating The Same As Undisclosed Investment.

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 292B

…he AO himself noted that “The assessee proved that no capital gain arose from sale of landed property”. Ld. AR vehemently pointed out that in view of the proposition rendered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd., [2011] 331 ITR 236 (Bom), if after issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act, the AO accepts the contention of the assessee and holds that the income which he has initially formed a reason to believe had escaped assessment, has as a matter of fact not escaped assessment, then it is not open to him independently to assess some other income. Ld. AR strenuously contended that…

Shri Antaryami Kar, Balasore vs. ITO, Ward-1, Balasore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 94/CTK/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargआयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.94/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Sri Antaryami Kar, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Balasore, S/O-Bhagirathi Kar, District : Balasore At-Podapatna, Oupada, Dist: Balasore-759049 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Asvpk 7004 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/04/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 05/04/2019 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Cuttack, Dated 23.01.2019 Passed In First Appeal No.0328/2015-16 For The Assessment Year 2011-2012. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Read As Follows:- 1. For That, The Impugned Order Of Reassessment So Passed By The Learned A.O. Is Premature, Without Jurisdiction & Without The Authority Of Law, As Such, The Same Needs To Be Quashed In The Interest Of Justice. 2. For That, The Learned C.I.T.(A) Should Have Quashed The Impugned Order Of Reassessment, Particularly When, The Same Is Without Jurisdiction, As Such The Impugned Order Of Reassessment, Being Not Sustainable In The Eye Of Law Is Liable To Be Quashed In The Interest Of Justice. 3. For That, The Learned C.I.T.(A) Should Not Have Ignored The Explanation As Well As The Cash Flow Statement & Capital Account Furnished By The Appellant & Should Not Have Confirmed The Addition Made By The Learned A.O., Treating The Same As Undisclosed Investment.

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 292B

…he AO himself noted that “The assessee proved that no capital gain arose from sale of landed property”. Ld. AR vehemently pointed out that in view of the proposition rendered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd., [2011] 331 ITR 236 (Bom), if after issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act, the AO accepts the contention of the assessee and holds that the income which he has initially formed a reason to believe had escaped assessment, has as a matter of fact not escaped assessment, then it is not open to him independently to assess some other income. Ld. AR strenuously contended that…

Smt. Asha Yadav, Sagar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jabalpur

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 89/JAB/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur03 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2012-13 Smt. Asha Yadav V. Principal C.I.T.-1 Katra Ward, Bina Jabalpur Sagar Tan/Pan:Abzpu9749E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sanjay Mishra, Advocate Respondent By: Shri P. D. Chougale, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02 04 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 03 04 2019 O R D E R Per A. D. Jain, V.P.: This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Dated 26/3/2018 Passed By The Ld. Pr. C.I.T., Jabalpur U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, Taking The Following Grounds: 1. That, The Order Passed By The Pr. Cit-1, Jabalpur U/S 263 Dated 26.03.2018 Is Arbitrary, Erroneous & Contrary To The Facts & Records Of The Assessment, Hence Liable To Be Set Aside. 2. That, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Conclusion Of Pr. Cit-1, Jabalpur Regarding Contravention Of Provision U/S 40 A (3) Of The Act Is Erroneous. 3. That, On The Facts & Circumstance Of The Case, The Conclusion Of Pr. Cit-1, Jabalpur Regarding Applicability Of Section 194 C Of The Act Is Illegal, Arbitrary & Erroneous. 4. That, The Order Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Is Served To The Assessee On 09.04.2018, Hence The Order Is Clearly Barred By Limitation. 5. That, While Passing The Order U/S 263 No Reasonable & Proper Opportunity Of Being Heard Is Provided To The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougale, D.R
Section 147Section 194Section 263Section 40

…), dated 11/3/2016, wherein altogether different addition has been made, representing disallowance made out of development charges, amounting to Rs.80,000/-, is void ab-initio, in the light of the following decisions: 1. C.I.T. vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. [2011] 311 ITR 236. 2. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. C.I.T. [2011] 336 ITR 136. 6. It is the further submission on behalf of the assessee that since the assessment order itself is thus void ab-initio, no proceedings with reference thereto could have been initiated and that the resulting impugned order passed u/s. 263 of the Act is also null and void. 7. The ld. D.R…

Smt. Lalita Bai Khandelwal vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 207/JAB/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur03 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2007-08 Smt. Lalita Bai Khandelwal V. Income Tax Officer Mangalwara Chouraha Ward 1 Babai, Hoshangabad

For Appellant: Shri L. L. Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougale, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147

…ation of the source of investment cannot be termed as escapement of income and hence the order passed by the A.O. is void ab-initio, in the light of the following decisions: 1. ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das, 103 ITR 437. 2. C.I.T. vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. [2011] 311 ITR 236. 3. ITO vs. Shri Khajanchand Chhabra in ITA No.164/JAB/2006, passed on 2/8/2006. 3. The ld. D.R., on the other hand, has placed strong reliance on the impugned order. 4. A reading of the reasons recorded by the A.O. for forming belief of escapement of income shows that such reasons are with regard to the verification of the investment made by the…

Sohanlal Bohra, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3743/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

….w.s. 147 of the Act dated 25/03/2015 wherein the loan amount of Rs.5 lakhs was added u/s.68 of the Act deserves to be quashed by placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jet Airways (India) Ltd, reported in 331 ITR 236 (Bom). 4. We have heard rival submissions. We find that the addition has been made based on the reasons recorded in the assessment and accordingly, reliance placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High court in the case of Jet Airways (India) Ltd., does not support the case of the assessee in the facts of the instant case. In view of…

The Harsiddhi Co.Op. Credit Society Ltd., Mahisagar vs. The ITO, Lunawad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1862/AHD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1862/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Harsiddhi Co-Op. Credit Ito, Lunawada. Society Ltd., Tower Road Vs At & O : Santrampur 389 260 Dist: Mahisagar, Gujarat Pan : Aabat 3395 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sakar Sharma, Ar Revenue By : Shri T.C.Meena, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25/03/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26/03/2019

For Appellant: Shri Sakar Sharma, ARFor Respondent: Shri T.C.Meena, Sr.DR
Section 139Section 143Section 147Section 148

…assessment was reopened on the ground that the assessee has made deposits in cash in bank account, whereas no addition qua that issue has been made. Hon’ble Gujarat High Court after putting reliance upon the judgment in the case of CIT Vs. Jet Airways I Ltd., 331 ITR 236 and the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. CIT, 336 ITR 136 has held that if no addition was made to the income of the assessee on the issue for which assessment was reopened then any income found to have been escaped from the assessment during the re- assessment proceedings on other issues cannot be…

Jitendra Roopraj Mehta, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Pune

In the result, all the three appeals of assessee are

ITA 442/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Verma
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…made on the ground for which assessment was reopened u/s 147, no other addition can be made by the Assessing officer which did not form part of the reasons recorded by him in view of the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Jet airways(India) Ltd 331 ITR 236 and Gujarat High Court in Tax Appeal No. 964 and 967 of 2011 in matter of CIT Vs. Mohmed Juned Dadani, hence beyond Jurisdiction of Assessing officer. 4. Similar grounds have been raised by the assessee in A.Ys 2010-11 and 2011-12. 5. On the basis of information received from Sales Tax Department, it was noticed that assessee had made purchase…

Jitendra Roopraj Mehta, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Pune

In the result, all the three appeals of assessee are

ITA 441/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Verma
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…made on the ground for which assessment was reopened u/s 147, no other addition can be made by the Assessing officer which did not form part of the reasons recorded by him in view of the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Jet airways(India) Ltd 331 ITR 236 and Gujarat High Court in Tax Appeal No. 964 and 967 of 2011 in matter of CIT Vs. Mohmed Juned Dadani, hence beyond Jurisdiction of Assessing officer. 4. Similar grounds have been raised by the assessee in A.Ys 2010-11 and 2011-12. 5. On the basis of information received from Sales Tax Department, it was noticed that assessee had made purchase…

Jitendra Roopraj Mehta, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Pune

In the result, all the three appeals of assessee are

ITA 440/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Verma
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…made on the ground for which assessment was reopened u/s 147, no other addition can be made by the Assessing officer which did not form part of the reasons recorded by him in view of the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Jet airways(India) Ltd 331 ITR 236 and Gujarat High Court in Tax Appeal No. 964 and 967 of 2011 in matter of CIT Vs. Mohmed Juned Dadani, hence beyond Jurisdiction of Assessing officer. 4. Similar grounds have been raised by the assessee in A.Ys 2010-11 and 2011-12. 5. On the basis of information received from Sales Tax Department, it was noticed that assessee had made purchase…

Chetan Ramniklal Shah, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 5(4), Mumbai

ITA 3751/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri N. K. Pradhanshri Chetan Ramniklal Shah, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax 5Th Floor, Urmi Building, Central Circle-5(4) Vs. 19Th Floor, R. No. 1927 Air India Bldg 65, A.G. Road, Worli Sea Face, Mumbai-4000025 Mumbai. Pan – Aajps7227C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Awangshi Gimson, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…not empowered to make addition of any other item during the course of assessment proceedings. In support of this proposition, the ld. A.R placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236. Accordingly he submitted that the reopening of assessment would fail on this ground alone. 8. The ld. A.R further submitted that the assessing officer, at the time of reopening, was not clear as to which income has escaped the assessment in the hands of the assessee. In the reasons recorded for reopening, the assessing officer has stated that th…

Harish Mittal, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Faridabad

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 5313/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: SH. R.K. MALHOTRA, ADVOCATEFor Respondent: SH. S.L. ANURAGI, SR. DR
Section 127(1)Section 147Section 234A

…items for which reasons are recorded have not escaped assessment, it means he had no “reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment” and the issue of the notice becomes invalid. If so, he has no jurisdiction to assess any other income. (Jet Airways 331 ITR 236 (Bom) followed.” 5.1 After perusing the aforesaid revised grounds raised before the Ld. CIT(A) by the assessee which are filed before the Tribunal vide Paper Book and also raised before the Tribunal vide ground no. 2 and after perusing the impugned order and in the interest of justice, I am of the considered view that the above mentioned revi…