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

Issues it is cited on

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

Sh. Ashok Kumar, Haridwar vs. ITO, Haridwar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 107/DDN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun17 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalashok Kumar, Assessment Unit, 19, Sitapur Mazara, Jwalapur, Income Tax Haridwar, Uttarakhand-249407 Vs. Department. Pan-Btupk9604E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pankaj Goel, Adv. Department By Shri A. S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/09/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (‘The Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short) In Appeal No. Nfac/2014-15/10271519 Dated 10.04.2025 For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Agriculturist Having No Any Other Source Of Income Than Agricultural Income. Since, The Income From Agricultural Operations Is Exempt From Tax, He Was Not Obliged To File The Return Of Income. The Assessing Officer Based On The Information That Assessee Has Deposited A Sum Of Rs.76,00,000/- In Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd., Initiated Reassessment Proceedings In The Case Of Assessee By Recording Reasons That Income To The Extent Of Rs.76,00,000/- Has Escaped Assessment In The Order Passed U/S 148A(D) Of The Act. Accordingly, Notices U/S 148 Was Issued On 26.03.2022. In Response To Which Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 12.04.2022 Ashok Kumar Vs. Ito Declaring Total Income Of Rs.10,00,000/- From Agriculture Activity & Claimed The Same As Exempt From Tax. The Assessing Officer Passed The Reassessment Order Wherein He Has Made The Additions On Account Of Agriculture Income Of Rs.10,00,000/- By Treating The Same As Income From Other Sources & Further Made Additions Of Rs.76,00,000/- Being Cash Deposited During Demonetization As Unexplained Money U/S 69A Of The Act. The Ao Further Made Additions Of Rs.2,67,195/- As Against Nil Income Declared Towards Bank Interest.

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

…mpowering the AO to improve upon, supplement or supplant the reasons which formed the bedrock for initiation of action under the aforenoted provisions.” 10. Similarly, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Jet Airways (I) Ltd. reported in [2011] 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) has held that “it is not open to AO to independently assess some income other than the income referred in section 148 for which reason was recorded”. The relevant head note of the judgement reads as under:- “Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Income escaping assessment - Non-disclosure of primary facts Assessment years 1994-95 and 199…

Baglan Prathmik Shikshak Sahkari Patsanstha Maryadit, Nampur vs. Income Tax Officer, Malegaon

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

ITA 358/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.358/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Baglan Prathmik Shikshak Vs. Ito, Ward-2, Malegaon. Sahkari Patsanstha Maryadit, Nampur, Baglan, Nashik- 423204. Pan : Aadab1392C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod Shingte Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.09.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Ao Erred In Making Various Additions Other Than The Reasons For Which The Case Was Reopened, I.E. Cash Deposited In Bank During Demonetization Period, As He Was Satisfied With Explanation Offered During The Course Of Reassessment Proceedings, Other Additions Are Not Permissible As Per The Provisions Of Section 147, In View Of The Judgment Of Hon'Ble Jurisdictional High Court In The Case Of Cit Vs. Jet Airways (1) Ltd. 331 Itr 236 (Bom).

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

…atisfied with explanation offered during the course of reassessment proceedings, other additions are not permissible as per the provisions of section 147, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jet Airways (1) Ltd. 331 ITR 236 (BOM). 2 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law. the lower authorities have erred in rejecting deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) for a sum of Rs. 1,48,50,248/- being entire book profit of appellant society by relying on the provisions of Section 80A (5) of the IT Act, without appreciating the fact that said provisions do not ap…

Bhupesh Gupta, Nalagarh, Himachal Pradesh vs. ACIT(Central Circle), Shimla, Himachal Pradesh

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 442/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 441 & 442/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Shri Bhupesh Gupta, Vs The Acit, Aakash Hospital & Central Circle, Diagnostic, Nalagarh, Shimla. Solan. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aarpg5916A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Jcit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.09.2025 Virtual Hearing O R D E R Per Raj Pal Yadav, Vp

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT Sr.DR
Section 147

…assessment was reopened for escapement of income ‘A’ but no addition of item ‘A’ was made and addition of item ‘B’ was made. Thus, these additions are not sustainable in view of the judgement of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jet Airways reported in 331 ITR 236, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT, 336 ITR 136 and judgement of Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in the case of Md. Juned 353 ITR 172. 4. With the assistance of ld. Representative, we have gone through the record carefully. Since the issue agitated in the additional ground of appeal is a jurisdictional one, therefore, in view…

Bhupesh Gupta, Nalagarh, Himachal Pradesh vs. ACIT (Central Circle ), Shimla, Himachal Pradesh

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 441/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 441 & 442/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Shri Bhupesh Gupta, Vs The Acit, Aakash Hospital & Central Circle, Diagnostic, Nalagarh, Shimla. Solan. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aarpg5916A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Jcit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.09.2025 Virtual Hearing O R D E R Per Raj Pal Yadav, Vp

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT Sr.DR
Section 147

…assessment was reopened for escapement of income ‘A’ but no addition of item ‘A’ was made and addition of item ‘B’ was made. Thus, these additions are not sustainable in view of the judgement of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jet Airways reported in 331 ITR 236, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT, 336 ITR 136 and judgement of Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in the case of Md. Juned 353 ITR 172. 4. With the assistance of ld. Representative, we have gone through the record carefully. Since the issue agitated in the additional ground of appeal is a jurisdictional one, therefore, in view…