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.

Jagdish U. Thackersay, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Circle) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 5045/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Mr. K. Gopal, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234BSection 54F

…nfrapower Ltd. v. DCIT [2017] 390 ITR 456 (Delhi), Yogendrakumar Gupta [2014] 227 Taxman 374 (SC), Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. v. ITO and other (236 ITR 34), R.K. Malhotra ITO v. Kasturbhai Lalbhai [1997] 109 ITR 537 (SC), CIT v. P.V.S. Beedies (P.) Ltd. [1999] 237 ITR 13 (SC), ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC), Yuvraj v. Union of India [315 ITR 84] (SC) and Ankit Financial Services Ltd. v. DCIT [2017] 78 taxmann.com 58 (Gujarat). 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. The reasons for our decisions are given infra. 8 Shri Jagdish U.…

Om Prakash Gulati, Jind vs. ACIT, Bhiwani

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 5255/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: The Ld. First Appellate

Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 2

…. DR also submitted that there is a settled judicial precedent by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of R.K. Malhotra, ITO vs. Kasturbhai Lalbhai reported in 109 ITR 537 (SC) and CIT vs. P.V.S Om Prakash Gulati, Jind vs. ACIT Beedies Pvt. Ltd. reported in 237 ITR 13 (SC) that reopening of case on the basis of factual information given by internal audit party is valid in law. The Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the reopening deserve to be upheld. 5.0 We have heard the rival submissions and have also perused the material on record. A perusal of the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide dated 12.11.201…

Aditya Birla Telecom Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 5(1), Mumbai

ITA 2350/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपील िं./ Ita No. 2350/Mum/2013 (निर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2007-08) Vodafone Idea Limited The Asst. Commissioner Of (Successor To Aditya Birla Telecom Income Tax Limited) Aayaker Bhavan, M.K. Road, बिाम/ 10Th Floor, Birla Centurion, Century Churchgate, Mumbai Vs. Mills Compound, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aaacb2100P अपीलार्थी की ओर े/ Appellant By : Shri Yogesh Thar, Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े/ Respondent By : Shri Michael Jerald, Sr.Dr ुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2020 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 11.08.2020 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Michael Jerald, SR.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…sdiction to issue notice under section 148 of the Act. 5.2.3. Regarding the LAPs alternate argument that the reassessment was at the behest of revenue audit party, it is noted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. PVS Beedees Pvt. Ltd. (1999) 237 ITR 13 (SC) has held that reopening of assessment on the basis of factual error pointed out by the internal audit party was valid. 5.2.4. Secondly in the case of Phoolchand Bajranglal vs. ITO (1973) 203 ITR 456 (SC) cash loans claimed to be taken from a company and accepted as genuine in the original assessment were subsequently found to be bogus. Hon’b…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Niit Smartserve Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 5173/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowlaand Shri N.K. Billaiya[Assessment Year: 2005-06] The Dy.C.I.T Vs. Niit Smartserve Ltd Circle – 18(2) 8, Balaji Estate New Delhi Guru Ravidas Marg New Delhi Pan: Aabcn 4598 E & Co No. 217/Del/2018 (In Ita No.5173/Del/2015) [Assessment Year: 2005-06] Niit Smartserve Ltd Vs. The Dcit 8, Balaji Estate Circle – 18(2) Guru Ravidas Marg New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabcn 4598 E [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2020

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32

…ision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in 256 ITR 391 wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that “Where the audit objections relate to factual error pointed out by the audit party, reopening is valid.” 16. Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in 237 ITR 13. 17. The ld. counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, vehemently stated that the reassessment proceedings are barred by limitation of four years as prescribed in proviso to section 147 and captioned reassessment is merely based on change of opinion which is not permissible in law as the Assessing Officer had no new tangible material on the bas…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Sri. K.Srikanth, Chennai

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

ITA 1324/CHNY/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…s is based on factual errors, then it can be a valid ground for reopening of the concluded assessment u/s 147 of the 1961 Act. Reliance was placed by learned CIT-DR on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. P.V.S. Beedies Pvt. Ltd.(1999) 237 ITR 13(SC). Thus, learned CIT-DR would contend that factual error was brought to the notice of the AO and hence reopening of the concluded assessment by invoking provisions of Section 147 is justified , by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Private Limited(supra) ,para 18 and it was submit…

Sri K.Srikanth, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

ITA 1016/CHNY/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…s is based on factual errors, then it can be a valid ground for reopening of the concluded assessment u/s 147 of the 1961 Act. Reliance was placed by learned CIT-DR on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. P.V.S. Beedies Pvt. Ltd.(1999) 237 ITR 13(SC). Thus, learned CIT-DR would contend that factual error was brought to the notice of the AO and hence reopening of the concluded assessment by invoking provisions of Section 147 is justified , by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Private Limited(supra) ,para 18 and it was submit…

Sri K.Srikanth, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

ITA 1015/CHNY/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…s is based on factual errors, then it can be a valid ground for reopening of the concluded assessment u/s 147 of the 1961 Act. Reliance was placed by learned CIT-DR on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. P.V.S. Beedies Pvt. Ltd.(1999) 237 ITR 13(SC). Thus, learned CIT-DR would contend that factual error was brought to the notice of the AO and hence reopening of the concluded assessment by invoking provisions of Section 147 is justified , by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Private Limited(supra) ,para 18 and it was submit…

Shri K.Srikanth, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

ITA 307/CHNY/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…s is based on factual errors, then it can be a valid ground for reopening of the concluded assessment u/s 147 of the 1961 Act. Reliance was placed by learned CIT-DR on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. P.V.S. Beedies Pvt. Ltd.(1999) 237 ITR 13(SC). Thus, learned CIT-DR would contend that factual error was brought to the notice of the AO and hence reopening of the concluded assessment by invoking provisions of Section 147 is justified , by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Private Limited(supra) ,para 18 and it was submit…

Shrimati Neetima Goyal, Ferozpur Cantt vs. Income Tax Officer, 3(2), Ferozpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal ground

ITA 184/ASR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar03 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri L.P. Sahu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.184/Asr/2018 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Neetima Goyal, Vs. Ito, Ward-3(2), Ferozepur Prop. Raghav Sales, G.T.Road, Ferozepur Cantt., Pin-152001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Panno. : Aicpg 3586 H (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri I.P.Bansal, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Charan Dass, Dr

For Appellant: Shri I.P.Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Charan Dass, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151(2)Section 44A

…the initiation of reassessment, we hold this report of the internal audit party, formed a valid foundation for the initiation of reassessment proceedings, thereby pushing the case outside the ambit of ‘change of opinion'. (ii) CIT PVS beedies (p) ltd vs 1999 237 ITR 13 Sc (b) It is also well settled that even if the information be such that it could have been obtained during the previous assessment from an investigation of the materials on the record, or the facts disclosed thereby or from other enquiry or research into facts or law, but was not in fact obtained, the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer is not…

M/S. Alcatel Lucent India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed

ITA 6001/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: And Ms. Ananya Kapoor,AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 154(1)

…s ultimately agreed before A.O. Therefore, reopening of the assessment is justified. The Ld. D.R. relied upon the following decisions : 1. New Delhi Television Ltd., vs., DCIT [2017] 84 taxmann.com 136 (Del.) (HC) 2. CIT vs., P.V.S. Beedies (P.) Ltd., [1999] 237 ITR 13 (SC) 3. CIT vs., Kiranbhai Jamnadas Shety HUF [2014] 221 Taxman 19 (Gujarat). 4. Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals Ltd., vs., CIT [2012] 346 ITR 228 (Guj.). 6 ITA.No.6001/Del./2014 M/s. Alcatel Lucent India Ltd., Gurgaon. 6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. It is well settled Law that validity of re-a…

Asst CIT 24(3), Mumbai vs. Nanavati Constructions, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2424/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri B.V. Jhaveri, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, D.R
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

…vs. AC1T (Gujarat High Court)where the Hon'ble High Court in its order dated December 8, 2016 has held that '..the law on the point laid down by the Supreme Court in judgement in case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. P.V.S. BeediesPvt. Ltd. reported in (1999) 237 ITR 13 and in case of Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. Commissioner of Income-tax reported in (1979) 119 ITR 996 is well settled. We also have the decision of this Court in case of Adani Exports v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (1999) 240 ITR 224(Guj) on this issue. In case of Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society (supra), the Supre…

Oleofine Organics (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 10(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee with regard to limited purpose of Ground No

ITA 5831/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am M/S. Oleofine Organics Vs. The Deputy Commissioner (India) Pvt.Ltd. Of Income Tax, Circle-10(2) 101/B, Fine House Aayakar Bhavan Anandji Lane New Marine Lines Off. M.G. Road Mumbai – 400 020 Ghatkopar (E) Mumbai – 400 077 Pan/Gir No. Aaaco1352Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

…s the court, on the strength of the affidavit or oral submissions advanced. 5.1. On the contrary, we find that the ld. DR placed reliance on the following decisions: a) Decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. PVS Beedies Pvt. Ltd reported in 237 ITR 13 (SC) We find that this decision was rendered in the context of reopening being made based on audit objection pointing out a factual mistake committed by the Assessing Officer. This decision is not applicable to the facts of the instant case. b) Decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Hinduja Foundation vs. ITO reported in 201…

Sunil Kanayalal Gambani, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 2, Kalyan

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1179/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Mr. M. Subramanian, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh, DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234A

…anayalal v. ITO (51 taxmann.com 383) (SC)/[2014] 227 Taxman 374 (SC), Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO And Others (236 ITR 34), R.K. Malhotra ITO v. Kasturbhai Lalbhai [1977] 109 ITR 537 (SC), CIT v. P.V.S. Beedies (P.) Ltd. [1999] 103 Taxman 294 (SC)/[1999] 237 ITR 13 (SC)/[1999] 155 CTR 538 (SC), ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2007] 161 Taxman 316 (SC)/[2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC)/[2007] 210 CTR 30 (SC), Yuvraj v. Union of India [315 ITR 84] (SC) and Ankit Financial Services Ltd. v. DCIT [2017] 78 taxmann.com 58 (Gujarat). Relying on the above case-laws, the Ld. DR submits that the order passed by…

Addll. CIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the ground raised by the assessee in the application

ITA 3799/DEL/2009[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jul 2019AY 2002-03

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Shah, CIT-DRFor Respondent: S/Shri S.N.Soparkar, Vartik Chokshi &
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…. CIT(A) has erred in holding the notice u/s.148 as invalid and quashing the assessment order without proper appreciation of the facts of the case and against the spirit of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. PVS Beedies Limited — 237 ITR 13. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the reference made by the AO to the TPO was incorrect and that the assessment order was barred by limitation without proper appreciation of the provisions of section 147 as amended by the Finance Act, 2009 w.e.f. 1.4.1989. The appellant craves…

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Surat vs. M/S. Samruddhi Corporation, Surat

In the result, cross appeals of Revenue as well as Assessee are dismissed

ITA 3390/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Meenaassessment Year: 2009-10 Samruddhi Corporation, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Megh Dhwani Complex, Income Tax, Circle-1(2), City Light Road, Surat – 395007. Surat. [Pan: Aaofm 5334 M] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Samruddhi Corporation, Tax, Circle-1(2), Surat. Megh Dhwani Complex, City Light Road, Surat – 395007. [Pan: Aaofm 5334 M] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 1Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…n the meaning of section 147, the true evaluation of the law and its bearing on the assessment must be made directly and solely by the assessing officer. 6.1.3 Delving further on this issue the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of CIT v, PVS Beedies (P) Ltd. 237 ITR 13, has stated that the internal audit party is entitled to point out a factual error or omission in the assessment and that the reopening of the case on the basis of such factual error is permissible under law. With this judgment the issue of 'information' supplied by an audit party, both on point of law and of fact, has been settled in favour of re…

M/S. Samriddhi Corporation, Surat vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1(2), Surat

In the result, cross appeals of Revenue as well as Assessee are dismissed

ITA 3035/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Meenaassessment Year: 2009-10 Samruddhi Corporation, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Megh Dhwani Complex, Income Tax, Circle-1(2), City Light Road, Surat – 395007. Surat. [Pan: Aaofm 5334 M] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Samruddhi Corporation, Tax, Circle-1(2), Surat. Megh Dhwani Complex, City Light Road, Surat – 395007. [Pan: Aaofm 5334 M] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 1Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…n the meaning of section 147, the true evaluation of the law and its bearing on the assessment must be made directly and solely by the assessing officer. 6.1.3 Delving further on this issue the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of CIT v, PVS Beedies (P) Ltd. 237 ITR 13, has stated that the internal audit party is entitled to point out a factual error or omission in the assessment and that the reopening of the case on the basis of such factual error is permissible under law. With this judgment the issue of 'information' supplied by an audit party, both on point of law and of fact, has been settled in favour of re…

Sgdc India P. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 24(2), Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 405/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.V. Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

…Supreme Court held that the intimation which the Income-tax Officer received from the audit department would constitute "information" within the meaning of section 147(b). 15.9 Referring to the decision in the case of CIT Vs P.V.S. Beedies (P.) Ltd., (1999) 237 ITR 13 (SC), he submitted that in the said decision the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Audit party had merely pointed out a fact which had been overlooked by Assessing Officer and this was not a case of information on a question of law. Reopening of case under section 147(b) on basis of factual information given by internal audit party was valid in la…

Sgdc India P. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 24(2), Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 403/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.V. Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

…Supreme Court held that the intimation which the Income-tax Officer received from the audit department would constitute "information" within the meaning of section 147(b). 15.9 Referring to the decision in the case of CIT Vs P.V.S. Beedies (P.) Ltd., (1999) 237 ITR 13 (SC), he submitted that in the said decision the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Audit party had merely pointed out a fact which had been overlooked by Assessing Officer and this was not a case of information on a question of law. Reopening of case under section 147(b) on basis of factual information given by internal audit party was valid in la…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Oriental Bank of Commerce, Gurgaon

ITA 4334/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jun 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri KVSR Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Paramita M. Biswas, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ent order. Ld. DR also relied upon the decisions rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as Hon’ble High Court cited as R.K. Malhotra, ITO vs. Kasturbhai Lalbhai 109 ITR 537 (SC), Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. vs. ITO 236 ITR 34, CIT vs. P.V.S. Beedies Ltd. 237 ITR 13 (SC), Yuvraj vs. UOI 315 ITR 84 (SC), Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. vs. DCIT 340 ITR 64 (SC), 4 ITA No.4334/Del./2016 Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. vs. DCIT 340 ITR 53 (Delhi), New Delhi Television Ltd. vs. DCIT (2017) 84 taxmann.com 136 (Delhi), Sun Direct TV Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (2018) 98 taxmann.com 201 (Madras), A Sridevi vs. ITO 2018-TIO…

The Gita Education Society, Delhi vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Ghaziabad

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 7441/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Agrawal & Hon’Ble Smt. Suchitra Kamblethe Gita Education Vs Income Tax Officer, Exemption Society, C/O Kapil Goel Ward, Ghaziabad Adv F-26/124 Sector 7 Rohini, Delhi-110085 Pan-Aaaat9753G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35

…eopen escaped assessment does not mean that such reasons are to be communicated along with notice itself; very notice will not provide a cause of action for assessee to file writ petitions. 15. CIT Vs P.V.S. Beedies (P.) Ltd.[1999] 103 Taxman 294 (SC)/[1999] 237 ITR 13 (SC)/[1999] 155 CTR 538 (SC) (Copy enclosed) where Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Audit party had merely pointed out a fact which had been overlooked by Assessing Officer and this was not a case of information on a question of law. Reopening of case under section 147(b) on basis of factual information given by internal audit party was valid in la…