CIT v. Paramjit Kaur

311 ITR 38High Court2008#1024 most cited

What is CIT v. Paramjit Kaur authority for?

An Assessing Officer must have 'reasons to believe,' not just 'reasons to suspect,' that income has escaped assessment before initiating reassessment proceedings. The AO must apply independent mind to the information and record own satisfaction, rather than acting mechanically or on borrowed satisfaction.

106

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Paramjit Kaur · 311 ITR 38 · Section 147 · Section 148 · reasons to believe · reasons to suspect · escapement of income · non-application of mind · borrowed satisfaction · independent satisfaction of AO · reassessment proceedings · initiation of reassessment

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 143(3)Section 151Section 250Section 145(3)Section 1961Section 40A(3)

Issues it is cited on

section 2(40)live linkborrowed satisfactionbogus share capitalmaterial facts necessary for assessmentbogus ltcgescapement of incomefull and true disclosurebogus long term capital gainnon application of mindreason to believemere change of opinion

Judgments citing CIT v. Paramjit Kaur

K.P. International, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed”

ITA 2246/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Diva Singhassessment Year: 2007-08 K.P. International Ito F-47, Desh Bandhu Gupta Vs. Ward-51(4) Market, Karol Bagh, New New Delhi Delhi

Section 148

…o believe for issuing a notice. The Assessing Officer had clearlv substituted form for substance and therefore the action of the Assessing Officer was not sustainable." The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. Parantjil Kaur [2009] 311 ITR 38 held as under:- "Held, that the Assessing Officer had not examined the information received from the survey circle before recording his own satisfaction of escaped income and initialing reassessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer had thus acted only on the basis of suspicion and it could not be said that it was based on belief dial the income…

M/S. Meditronics India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 6251/DEL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri L. P. Sahui. T. Appeal No. 6251/Del/2012 Assessment Year : 2004-2005. M/S. Meditronics India Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer, 41, Pocket–Ii, Jasola, Vs. Ward : 6 (3), D E L H I – 110 025. New Delhi. Pan : Aadcm 3622 Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Adv.; &For Respondent: Shri Gudrun Nehra, Sr. D. R
Section 147

…ngible material for the formation of the belief :- CIT vs. Indian Oil Corporation a) 159 ITR 956 (SC) CIT vs. Gupta Abhushan (P.) Ltd. [2009] b) 312 ITR 166 (Delhi) SMCC Construction India Ltd vs. ACIT [2014] c) 220 Taxman 354 (Delhi) CIT vs Paramjit Kaur d) 311 ITR 38 (P&H) “Reason to believe” entertained by the Assessing Officer must not be arbitrary or irrational and are stronger words “is satisfied” (Ganga Saran & Sons Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO reported in 130 ITR 1). 11 I. T. Appeal No. 6251/Del/2012 Assessment Year : 2004-2005. That both the share applicants from whom the assessee had received the sum along with…

Lalita Anup Anand, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 21(2)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7415/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 May 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2012-13 Smt. Lalita Anup Anand, Income Tax Officer 337, Ashish Indl. Estate, Ward-21(2)(2), बनाम/ Gokhale Road, Room No.111, 1St Floor, Vs. Dadar (West), Piramal Chambers, Parel, Mumbai-400028 Mumbai-400012 Pan No.Aadpa1527B (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee)

…was also never provided to the assessee, so, the belief of the Assessing Officer that any on 3 Lalita anup Anand money was given by the assessee is without any evidence. Reliance was placed upon the decision COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT. PARAMJIT KAUR 311 ITR 38 (P & H) and UNITED ELECTRICAL COMPANY (P) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS. 258 ITR 317 (Del.). The ld. counsel further explained that the flats were in fact purchases for 2.14 crores, whereas, as per the stamp duly valuation authorities, the cost comes to 1.21 crores. Our attention was invited to copy of the agreement (pages 13 and 14 of…

M/S. Standard Watch Co. (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3076/DEL/2014[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Raj Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S.K. Jain, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151(1)Section 271(1)

…. Khamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. & Ors. – 248 CTR (Del.) 33; iii) CIT vs. Atul Jain & Ors. – 299 ITR 383 (Del.); iv) CIT vs. SFIL Stock Brooking Ltd.- 233 CTR (Del. 69; v ) Sarthak Securities Co. (P) Ltd.- 329 ITR 110 (Del.); vi) CIT vs. Smt. Pramjit Kaur – 311 ITR 38 ( P&H); 8. The Learned AR submitted further that initiation of reassessment proceedings is also not valid since it is amounting to 7 change of opinion that too after four years with no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all facts necessary for assessments. He pointed out that earlier assessment was completed under se…

Mahendra C. Gala, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 19(3), Mumbai

ITA 6590/MUM/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2015AY 2002-03
For Appellant: Shri Rajesh SanghaviFor Respondent: Shri Maurya Pratap-(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

…t sufficient for reopening the assessment. Therefore, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Assessing Officer was not justified in reopening the assessment under section 147 / 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.” We find that in the matter of Paramjit Kaur(311 ITR 38),the assessee had filed her original return declaring nil income.The AO initiated reassessment proceedings on the basis of information received from the survey circle that the she had got prepared a demand draft for a sum of Rs.83, 040/-which was not accounted in the books of account of the assessee.On appeal by the assessee,the FAA upheld the val…

ITO, Faridabad vs. Sh. Vinod Khatter, Faridabad

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2393/DEL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2015AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri P.Dam Kanunja Sr DRFor Respondent: Shri Salil Agarwal, Advocate
Section 131Section 147Section 148

…is the so called accommodation entry of Rs. 19 lacs. Ld. AR submitted that the AO did not apply his mind before issuance of notice u/s 148. He further relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Paramjit Kaur (2009) 311 ITR 38 (P&H) and also upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Signature Hotels Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO and another (2011) 338 ITR 51 (Delhi). 5. Ld. DR on the other hand stated that at the time of issue of notice u/s 148 only a tentative or prima facie belief regarding the escapement of income is 4 ITO vs. Vinod Khatter required. No c…