CIT v. PVS Beedies Pvt. Ltd.

237 ITR 13Supreme Court of India1999#873 most cited

What is CIT v. PVS Beedies Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

An audit objection that points out a factual error or omission overlooked by the Assessing Officer during the original assessment constitutes tangible material or information justifying the reopening of assessment under Section 147. This principle applies even for reopening beyond four years and is not considered a mere change of opinion.

120

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,418 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. PVS Beedies Pvt. Ltd. · Section 147 · Section 148 · reopening assessment · audit objection · factual error · tangible material · beyond four years · change of opinion · income escaping assessment

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 143(3)Section 148Section 144Section 115JBSection 14ASection 151Section 80P

Issues it is cited on

section 147(b)fresh tangible materialfull and true disclosurebeyond four yearsmere change of opinionkelvinatorfirst proviso to section 147change of opinionmaterial facts necessary for assessmenttangible materialsection 151(2)income escaping assessment

Judgments citing CIT v. PVS Beedies Pvt. Ltd.

The Haryana State Co-Operative Agriculture and Rural Development, Panchkula vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Panchkula

Appeal is allowed

ITA 590/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: BEFORE: SHRI. RAJPALYADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

…even if the reassessment was triggered by audit objections, it remains valid so long as the Assessing Officer has applied his independent judgment. This legal position has been confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.V.S. Beedies Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT [(1999) 237 ITR 13 (SC)] and reaffirmed in Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors. [2017] 82 taxmann.com 220 (SC). 8.3 By respectfully following the above decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we hold that the Assessing Officer recorded valid reasons and obtained due approval from the competent authority. Accordingly, we uphold the finding of the Ld. CIT…

The Haryana State Co-Operative Agriculture and Rural Development, Panchkula vs. DCIT, Circle, Panchkula

Appeal is allowed

ITA 589/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: BEFORE: SHRI. RAJPALYADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

…even if the reassessment was triggered by audit objections, it remains valid so long as the Assessing Officer has applied his independent judgment. This legal position has been confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.V.S. Beedies Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT [(1999) 237 ITR 13 (SC)] and reaffirmed in Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors. [2017] 82 taxmann.com 220 (SC). 8.3 By respectfully following the above decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we hold that the Assessing Officer recorded valid reasons and obtained due approval from the competent authority. Accordingly, we uphold the finding of the Ld. CIT…

The Haryana State Co-Operative Agriculture and Rural Development, Panchkula vs. DCIT, Circle, Panchkula

Appeal is allowed

ITA 588/CHANDI/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: BEFORE: SHRI. RAJPALYADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

…even if the reassessment was triggered by audit objections, it remains valid so long as the Assessing Officer has applied his independent judgment. This legal position has been confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.V.S. Beedies Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT [(1999) 237 ITR 13 (SC)] and reaffirmed in Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors. [2017] 82 taxmann.com 220 (SC). 8.3 By respectfully following the above decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we hold that the Assessing Officer recorded valid reasons and obtained due approval from the competent authority. Accordingly, we uphold the finding of the Ld. CIT…

Ajay Bakliwal, Kota vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1275/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Apr 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 129Section 132(1)Section 139Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

…come had escaped assessment, fulfilling the jurisdictional requirement under Section 148. • Findings of IAP are part of information available of record 2. 2. Legal Position on Audit Objections The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. PVS Beedies Pvt. Ltd. [(1999) 237 ITR 13 (SC)] held that reassessment proceedings based on an audit objection are valid if the AO has independently examined the matter and recorded satisfaction. 2. 3. Independent Application of Mind by AO In the present case, the AO has not merely acted on the directions of the IAP but has duly recorded his independent satisfaction based on the material…

Swati Energy & Projects (P) Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 14(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 310/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Pradip N. Kapasi, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. D/R
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 234D

…we do not find it necessary to delve into the merits of the case. 14. Before parting, the ld. D/R in his written submission has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs P.V.S. Beedies Pvt. Ltd. [1999] 237 ITR 13 (SC) and also on several decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court pointing out that the audit objection by the revenue audit party constitutes information on tangible material that justifies reopening. 14.1. We are of the considered view that such decisions apply when an audit party points out facts not in the knowledge of the AO originally wh…

Shah Rukh Khan, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6312/MUM/2024[A. Y. 2012-13 ]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2025

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Girish Agrawalshah Rukh Khan, 44, Mannat, Bj Road, Bandstand, Bandra, Mumbai - 400050 Pan: Aahpk3293L ……………. Appellant V/S Dcit, Central Circle – 4(2) Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, ……………. Respondent Mumbai - 400050 Maharashtra

For Appellant: Shri Aditya AjgaonkarFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 250

…ce. An assessee cannot throw reams of paper at the Assessing Officer and rest content in the belief that the Officer better beware or ignore the hidden crevices in the pointed material at his own peril." 7.10. Further, in the case of P.V.S. Beedies (P.) Ltd. (237 ITR 13), the Apex Court held that even the audit party can point out a fact, which has been over looked by the ITO in the assessment. Though there cannot be any interpretation of law by the audit party, it is entitled to point out a factual error or omission in the assessment and reopening of a case on the basis of factual error or omission pointed out b…

Samtel India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 22(1), New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7101/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalasst. Cit, Samtel India Limited, Circle-22(1), 501, Copia Corporate Vs. New Delhi. Suites, District Centre Jasola, New Delhi-110025 Pan-Aaacs0390N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri D.C. Garg, Ca Department By Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/02/2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Is Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, New Delhi (“The Cit(A)” For Short) In Appeal No.32/13-14 Dated 27/01/2015 For Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Viii, New Delhi, Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case In Upholding Action Of The Assessing Officer In Reopening The Assessment Under Samtel India Ltd. Vs. Acit

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 37

…sessment records and we cannot say that AO has recorded the reasons without referring to the material available in assessment folder of the assessee. He also placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements: - CIT Vs. PVS Beedies Pvt. Ltd. Reported in 237 ITR 13 (SC) - Honda Seil Power Products Ltd. Vs. DCIT reported in 52 DTR 353 (Delhi) We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material 12. available on records. In the instant case, the assessment was firstly completed u/s 143(3) wherein the AO after examine all the submissions filed by the assessee and are available on records, reached to th…

M/S Deora Electric Works, Allahabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1, Allahabad

In the result, both appeals i

ITA 99/ALLD/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad27 Dec 2024AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

…ention. i. Subodh Agarwal vs. State of U.P. (2023) 149 taxman.com 448 (Alld) ii. CIT vs. Juhi Medical Works (2003) 263 ITR 287 (Alld). iii. Nagrath Chemical Works (P.) Limited vs. CIT (2004) 265 ITR 401 (Alld) iv. CIT vs. P.V.S. Beedies Private Limited (1999) 237 ITR 13 (SC). v. CIT vs. Abhoji Rao Phalke 156 ITR 604 1995(MP) vi. Vashishtha Bhargav vs. ITO, (1975) 99 ITR (148) Delhi. vii. CIT vs. First Leasing Co. of India Limited (2000) 241 ITR 248 (Madras). viii. Bharat Ply Wood and Timber Products Limited vs. CIT (1992) 198 ITR 692 (Kerela) xi. New Light Trading Co. vs. CIT (2002) 256 ITR 391 (Delhi). The ld. D…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1, Allahabad vs. M/S Deora Electric Works, Allahabad

In the result, both appeals i

ITA 101/ALLD/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad27 Dec 2024AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

…ention. i. Subodh Agarwal vs. State of U.P. (2023) 149 taxman.com 448 (Alld) ii. CIT vs. Juhi Medical Works (2003) 263 ITR 287 (Alld). iii. Nagrath Chemical Works (P.) Limited vs. CIT (2004) 265 ITR 401 (Alld) iv. CIT vs. P.V.S. Beedies Private Limited (1999) 237 ITR 13 (SC). v. CIT vs. Abhoji Rao Phalke 156 ITR 604 1995(MP) vi. Vashishtha Bhargav vs. ITO, (1975) 99 ITR (148) Delhi. vii. CIT vs. First Leasing Co. of India Limited (2000) 241 ITR 248 (Madras). viii. Bharat Ply Wood and Timber Products Limited vs. CIT (1992) 198 ITR 692 (Kerela) xi. New Light Trading Co. vs. CIT (2002) 256 ITR 391 (Delhi). The ld. D…

Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward3(1), Chennai, Tamilnadu vs. Salcomp Manufacturing India (P) Ltd, Chennai, Tamilnadu

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1403/CHNY/2023[2009-10, 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1403/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 V. The Ito, M/S. Salcomp Manufacturing- Corporate Ward-3(1), India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. Nokia Telecom Sez, Sipcot Industrial Park- Phase-Iii, Sriperumbudur, Chennai-602 105. [Pan: Aajcs 7988 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Muralidhar, FCA &For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154

…m the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue especially Ground No.3, wherein, the Revenue has assailed the action of the Ld.CIT(A) for not following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. P.V.S. Beedies Pvt. Ltd. reported in [1999] 237 ITR 13 (SC), which was a case of re-opening on the basis of audit objection. We find that such a ground is not emerging from the re-assessment order or reasons recorded by the AO before he ventured to re-open the assessment. And it is no longer res-integra that while the legal issue regarding reopening is tested, the reason recorded by the AO has to b…

Regalia Laminates, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 62(5), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 764/DEL/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Regalia Laminates Mcd Vs Income Tax Officer Buliding, Ist Floor Db Gupta Ward- 62 (5) Road Paharganj, New Delhi- New Delhi 110055 Pan No. Aaifr7691F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…le to be taxed. The argument of appellant that reassessment proceedings on the basis of audit objections, without any independent satisfaction regarding escapement of income is not founded as Hon'ble Supreme Court, in case of CIT VS PVS Beedies Pvt Ltd (1999 237 ITR 13 SC) has pointed out that "Reopening of the case on the basis of a factual error pointed out by the audit party is permissible under the Law.” The argument of appellant that appellant was not given a show cause notice for the proposed disallowance u/s. 801-IC of the Act is not acceptable as it is noticed that appellant was provided reasons of reop…

ITO, Ward-1(1), Solapur vs. Ms. Kshirsagar Fabrics, Solapur

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 97/PUN/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

…on. Accordingly, the re-assessment proceedings were held to be valid. Relying on the following decisions, he submitted that the re-assessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer are in accordance with law: 1. CIT vs. P.V.S. Beedies (P.) Ltd. (1999) 237 ITR 13 (SC) 2. New Light Trading Company vs. CIT (2002) 256 ITR 391 (Del) 3. M/s. Vaishali Builders & Colonizers vs. Addl.CIT vide ITA No.391/Jodh/2011, order dated 25.07.2012 11. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee on the other hand heavily relied on the order of CIT(A) / NFAC in quashing the re-assessment proceedings. Referring to the decision of the Hon…

DCIT CC 4 (4), Mumbai vs. Sanman Trade Impex Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3606/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 69C

…l cannot dictate the to the issue) the sufficiency of that material cannot dictate the to the issue) the sufficiency of that material cannot dictate the validity of the notice." validity of the notice." 5.8.1. Further, in the case of P.V.S. Beedies (P.) Ltd. (237 ITR 13), the Apex 5.8.1. Further, in the case of P.V.S. Beedies (P.) Ltd. (237 ITR 13), the Apex 5.8.1. Further, in the case of P.V.S. Beedies (P.) Ltd. (237 ITR 13), the Apex Court held that even the audit party can point out a fact, which has been Court held that even the audit party can point out a fact, which has been Court held that even the audit p…

DCIT CC 4 (4), Mumbai vs. Sanman Trade Impex Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3605/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 69C

…l cannot dictate the to the issue) the sufficiency of that material cannot dictate the to the issue) the sufficiency of that material cannot dictate the validity of the notice." validity of the notice." 5.8.1. Further, in the case of P.V.S. Beedies (P.) Ltd. (237 ITR 13), the Apex 5.8.1. Further, in the case of P.V.S. Beedies (P.) Ltd. (237 ITR 13), the Apex 5.8.1. Further, in the case of P.V.S. Beedies (P.) Ltd. (237 ITR 13), the Apex Court held that even the audit party can point out a fact, which has been Court held that even the audit party can point out a fact, which has been Court held that even the audit p…

DCIT CC 4(4), Mumbai vs. Sanman Trade Impex Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3603/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 69C

…l cannot dictate the to the issue) the sufficiency of that material cannot dictate the to the issue) the sufficiency of that material cannot dictate the validity of the notice." validity of the notice." 5.8.1. Further, in the case of P.V.S. Beedies (P.) Ltd. (237 ITR 13), the Apex 5.8.1. Further, in the case of P.V.S. Beedies (P.) Ltd. (237 ITR 13), the Apex 5.8.1. Further, in the case of P.V.S. Beedies (P.) Ltd. (237 ITR 13), the Apex Court held that even the audit party can point out a fact, which has been Court held that even the audit party can point out a fact, which has been Court held that even the audit p…

Sanman Trade Impex Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-4(4), Mumbai

ITA 3491/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 149Section 151Section 69C

…a notice under Section 147. As long as there is objective tangible material in the form of documents, relevant to the issue) the sufficiency of that material cannot dictate the validity of the notice." 5.8.1. Further, in the case of P.V.S. Beedies (P.) Ltd. (237 ITR 13), the Apex Court held that even the audit party can point out a fact, which has been over looked by the TO in the assessment. Though there cannot be any interpretation of law by the audit party, it is entitled to point out a factual error or omission in the assessment and reopening of a case on the basis of factual error or omission pointed out by…

Sanman Trade Impex Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-Central Circle 4(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3474/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 69C

…l cannot dictate the to the issue) the sufficiency of that material cannot dictate the to the issue) the sufficiency of that material cannot dictate the validity of the notice." validity of the notice." 5.8.1. Further, in the case of P.V.S. Beedies (P.) Ltd. (237 ITR 13), the Apex 5.8.1. Further, in the case of P.V.S. Beedies (P.) Ltd. (237 ITR 13), the Apex 5.8.1. Further, in the case of P.V.S. Beedies (P.) Ltd. (237 ITR 13), the Apex Court held that even the audit party can point out a fact, which has been Court held that even the audit party can point out a fact, which has been Court held that even the audit p…

Sanman Trade Impex Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax- Central Circle 4(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3470/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 69C

…l cannot dictate the to the issue) the sufficiency of that material cannot dictate the to the issue) the sufficiency of that material cannot dictate the validity of the notice." validity of the notice." 5.8.1. Further, in the case of P.V.S. Beedies (P.) Ltd. (237 ITR 13), the Apex 5.8.1. Further, in the case of P.V.S. Beedies (P.) Ltd. (237 ITR 13), the Apex 5.8.1. Further, in the case of P.V.S. Beedies (P.) Ltd. (237 ITR 13), the Apex Court held that even the audit party can point out a fact, which has been Court held that even the audit party can point out a fact, which has been Court held that even the audit p…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Tirunelveli vs. Ms.Aarthi Scans, Kovilpatti

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 75/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar, CA
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…as failed to appreciate the fact that the reopening of assessment beyond four years is permissible under law on the basis of factual error or omission pointed out by the audit party as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P.V.S.Beedies Pvt Ltd (1999) 237 ITR 13 (SC). (4) The decision of Ld. CIT(A) is in contravention to explanation 2(c)(i) & (iv) of Section 147 of the IT Act in the assessee's case. The said proviso prescribes that it shall be deemed to be cases of income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the purpose of Section 147, where an assessment has been made but income chargeable to tax…

M/S.Va Tech Wabag Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT Central Circle 3(2), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 503/CHNY/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 41(1)Section 80ISection 80l

…e and need to be rectified by rectification/ re-opening of the assessment. Therefore, in order to assess such income assessee's return for AY 06- 07 needs to be reopened." The Ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.V.S. Beedies P. Ltd 237 ITR 13(SC) holding that audit note is an information for the purpose of Section 147. From the reasons recorded by the AO, it could be seen that he had examined the records and facts with reference to the audit objection and had come to prima facie reason to believe that the income had escaped assessment. Therefore, the reopening was valid. On the legal p…