CIT v. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd.

198 ITR 297Supreme Court of India1992#61 most cited

What is CIT v. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd. authority for?

A court's pronouncement derives its scope and color from the specific questions involved in the case, thus, due regard must always be given to the questions framed before the court when interpreting its judgment.

814

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,164 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Sun Engineering Works · 198 ITR 297 · Supreme Court 1992 · judgment interpretation · scope of decision · questions framed · judicial precedent · Section 147 · reassessment · income escaping assessment

Also reported as

64 Taxmann 442107 CTR 209

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 132Section 143(2)Section 143(1)Section 14A
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 2(viii)section 56(viii)section 45(5)(c)section 155(16)section 23(1a)section 104section 45(5)(b)section 145b(1)section 194lakeyman insurancesection 160section 23(2)

Judgments citing CIT v. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd.

Ncc Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

ITA 73/HYD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CA &For Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)

…ich are later years to AY 2008-09. (c) Further, each assessment is separate as per the ROI filed under 153A, therefore, no fresh deduction/set off can be given in at this stage. Reliance is placed on SC decisions in the case of M/s. Sun Engineering works Ltd. 198 ITR 297 (SC). 24. We have heard the rival contention of the parties and perused the material available on record and the judgements cited by the respective parties. In the present case, search and seizure action was carried out in the residential premises of one Shri Mukhesh Sharma in July, 2008. During the course of search, certain documents were found…

Elinjippurath Velayudhan Kochumon, Thrissur vs. ITO Ward 2(2), Thrissur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1011/COCH/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. S. Seethalakshmielinjippurath Velayudhan Kochumon The Income Tax Officer -2(2) Elinjipurath House Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Mannuty, Thrissur 680651 Shakthanthampuran Nagar [Pan:Asnpk4343B] Thrissur 680001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Dileep Balachandran, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)

…only emphasizing the Tribunal’s dilemma in understanding the basis on which the impugned addition stands made. As explained by the Hon'ble Apex Court time and again, and for which we may refer to it’s decision in CIT vs. Sun Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. [1992] 198 ITR 297 (SC): “It is neither desirable nor permissible to pick out a word or a sentence from the judgment of the Supreme Court divorced from the context of the question under consideration and treat it to be the complete law declared by the court. The judgment must be read as a whole and the observations from the judgment have to be considered in the lig…

Shri.Prakash R. Nair, Kollam vs. DCIT, Kollam

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 141/COCH/2021[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2024AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasprakash R. Nair Dy.Cit, Central Circle Prop. Dhanya Foods Kollam Kochuppilammoodu Vs. Kollam 691001 [Pan:Abfpn4424P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 148(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80Section 801A(9)Section 80HSection 80I

…he assessee, i.e., despite increase in the claim of deduction u/s. 80HHC by Rs. 125.88 (471.53 – 345.65) lakhs was explained to be in view of the reassessment proceedings, which are for the benefit of the Revenue (CIT v. Sun Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. [1992] 198 ITR 297 (SC)). This was not accepted by the AO who, reckoning that on manufactured and traded goods separately, worked out deduction on the latter at Rs.327.40 lakhs. The assessment was completed on 09.03.2004, making the following adjustments to the returned income, also initiating penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act vide notice u/s. 274 of ev…

DCIT, Central Circle Ajmer vs. Vijay Granimarmo Private Limited, Naya Ghar Gulab Bari Ajmer

In the result of the cross objection of the assessee in CO No

ITA 648/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Jan 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. C. M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Alka Gautam (CIT) (V.H)
Section 143(3)

…ed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dhakeswari case ,which clearly supports the grounds of the assessee only. B. Without prejudice it is also submitted that Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs M/S. Sun Engineering Works (P.) Ltd (1992) 198 ITR 297(SC) observed as under : “It is neither desirable nor permissible to pick out a word or a sentence from the judgment of this Court, divorced from the context of the question under consideration and treat it to be the complete 'law' declared by this Court. The judgment must be read as a whole and the observations from the judgment have to be consi…

DCIT, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. N Ramasamy, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 128/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.Gआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A Nos.127 & 128/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2015-2016 & 2016-2017 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Shri. N. Ramasamy, Income Tax, No.14/19, Saraswathi Street, Central Circle 2(2), Mahaingapuram, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 034. [Pan Adupr 8003P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2023. घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.12.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh:

For Appellant: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CITFor Respondent: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 143Section 143(3)

…is to be carried forward, by observing that the return of income filed in response to notice u/s.153A is treated as filed u/s.139(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 6.2. The Learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that in the case of CIT v. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd. (198 ITR 297) and Chettinad Corporation P. Ltd. v. CIT (200 ITR 320), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that reopening is only for the benefit of revenue and that assessments made u/s.153A being in the nature of reassessment proceedings, the said Hon'ble Supreme Court's decisions apply to return of income filed u/s.153A too. 6.3. The Learned CIT(A) ought to…

DCIT, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. N Ramasamy, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 127/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.Gआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A Nos.127 & 128/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2015-2016 & 2016-2017 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Shri. N. Ramasamy, Income Tax, No.14/19, Saraswathi Street, Central Circle 2(2), Mahaingapuram, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 034. [Pan Adupr 8003P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2023. घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.12.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh:

For Appellant: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CITFor Respondent: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 143Section 143(3)

…is to be carried forward, by observing that the return of income filed in response to notice u/s.153A is treated as filed u/s.139(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 6.2. The Learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that in the case of CIT v. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd. (198 ITR 297) and Chettinad Corporation P. Ltd. v. CIT (200 ITR 320), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that reopening is only for the benefit of revenue and that assessments made u/s.153A being in the nature of reassessment proceedings, the said Hon'ble Supreme Court's decisions apply to return of income filed u/s.153A too. 6.3. The Learned CIT(A) ought to…

Navayuga Engineering Company Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 241/HYD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Kumar Chakrapany, C.AFor Respondent: Smt.Mamata Choudhary
Section 115JSection 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80I

…ini Delux vs. ACIT (2015) 37 ITR (Trib) 52 (Bang.) d) ACIT vs. V.N. Devadoss (2013) 093 DTR 0073 e) DCIT vs. Eversmile Construction Co. Ltd (2012) 143 TTJ 0322 f) Mr.Faisal Abbas vs. DCIT (ITA No.3485 & 3487/ Mum/2010 g) CIT vs. Sun Engg. Works (P) Ltd (1992) 198 ITR 297 (S.C) h) M/s. KNR Constructions Ltd vs. DCIT (Ita No.946 to 948/Hyd/2015) i) DCIT vs. M/s. KNR Constructions Ltd (ITA 190 & 191/Hyd/2018) j) PNR Construction Co. Ltd vs. DCIT (2013) 37 Taxmann.com 361 (Agra Trib) k) M/s Transstory India Ltd vs. Income Tax Officer (Ita No.540/Vizag/2009. 10. Per contra the learned Standing Counsel for the Departme…

Navayuga Engineering Company Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 240/HYD/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Kumar Chakrapany, C.AFor Respondent: Smt.Mamata Choudhary
Section 115JSection 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80I

…ini Delux vs. ACIT (2015) 37 ITR (Trib) 52 (Bang.) d) ACIT vs. V.N. Devadoss (2013) 093 DTR 0073 e) DCIT vs. Eversmile Construction Co. Ltd (2012) 143 TTJ 0322 f) Mr.Faisal Abbas vs. DCIT (ITA No.3485 & 3487/ Mum/2010 g) CIT vs. Sun Engg. Works (P) Ltd (1992) 198 ITR 297 (S.C) h) M/s. KNR Constructions Ltd vs. DCIT (Ita No.946 to 948/Hyd/2015) i) DCIT vs. M/s. KNR Constructions Ltd (ITA 190 & 191/Hyd/2018) j) PNR Construction Co. Ltd vs. DCIT (2013) 37 Taxmann.com 361 (Agra Trib) k) M/s Transstory India Ltd vs. Income Tax Officer (Ita No.540/Vizag/2009. 10. Per contra the learned Standing Counsel for the Departme…

Navayuga Engineering Company Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 239/HYD/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Kumar Chakrapany, C.AFor Respondent: Smt.Mamata Choudhary
Section 115JSection 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80I

…ini Delux vs. ACIT (2015) 37 ITR (Trib) 52 (Bang.) d) ACIT vs. V.N. Devadoss (2013) 093 DTR 0073 e) DCIT vs. Eversmile Construction Co. Ltd (2012) 143 TTJ 0322 f) Mr.Faisal Abbas vs. DCIT (ITA No.3485 & 3487/ Mum/2010 g) CIT vs. Sun Engg. Works (P) Ltd (1992) 198 ITR 297 (S.C) h) M/s. KNR Constructions Ltd vs. DCIT (Ita No.946 to 948/Hyd/2015) i) DCIT vs. M/s. KNR Constructions Ltd (ITA 190 & 191/Hyd/2018) j) PNR Construction Co. Ltd vs. DCIT (2013) 37 Taxmann.com 361 (Agra Trib) k) M/s Transstory India Ltd vs. Income Tax Officer (Ita No.540/Vizag/2009. 10. Per contra the learned Standing Counsel for the Departme…

ACIT, Circle-2(2), International Taxation, New Delhi vs. Newspage Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1992/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1992/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 बनाम Acit, Newspage Pvt. Ltd., Circle 2(2), Vs. C/O Accenture Solutions P. Ltd., International Taxation, Godrej & Boyce Complex, New Delhi. Lbs Marg, Vikhrali West, Mumbai, Maharashtra. Pan No.Aadcn2660H अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 139(5)Section 148Section 246

…maintainable grounds and thereby rendering the proceedings u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act to the benefit of the assessee and prejudicial to the Revenue which contravenes the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Sun Engineering Works (198 ITR 297 SC). (vi) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in accepting and allowing the claim in an appeal u/s 246 of the Income Tax Act, which claim is not allowable under any provisions of the Income Tax Act, including the provisions of section 139(5) of the Income Tax Act as held by the Hon’ble Supre…

Paramjit Singh, Delhi vs. AO Ward-1, Karnal, Haryana

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 446/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 151Section 263

…der section 147." 12. The Division Bench in Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited (supra)considered the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of V. Jagmohan Rao versus CIT and EPT, (1970) 75 ITR 373(SC) and CIT versus Sun Engineering Works Private Limited, (1992) 198 ITR 297 (SC) and has then elucidated: "18. We are in complete agreement with the reasoning of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Limited [2011] 331 ITR 236 (Bom). We may also note that the heading of section 147 is "income escaping assessment" and that of section 148 "issue of notice where income escaped as…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Kishangarh vs. Shri Raju, Kishangarh

ITA 507/JPR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)

…letter dated 12.03.2015 has not approve the proposal u's 148 for reopening the cases of Shri Prakash Chand Vijayvergiya and Shri Manoj Kumar Agarwal," 6.3The appellant relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sun Engineering reported at 198 ITR 297 (SC) for proposition that only the reasons recorded are to be considered. With all due respect to above decision, if some other concealed income is noticed during the proceeding for the re- assessment, there is no bar to take cognizance of the same. However, the finding to that effect must be clinching. 6.3.1 In the instant case the proceeding st…

ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer vs. Shri Govind Narayan Sharma, Kishangarh

ITA 955/JPR/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)

…letter dated 12.03.2015 has not approve the proposal u's 148 for reopening the cases of Shri Prakash Chand Vijayvergiya and Shri Manoj Kumar Agarwal," 6.3The appellant relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sun Engineering reported at 198 ITR 297 (SC) for proposition that only the reasons recorded are to be considered. With all due respect to above decision, if some other concealed income is noticed during the proceeding for the re- assessment, there is no bar to take cognizance of the same. However, the finding to that effect must be clinching. 6.3.1 In the instant case the proceeding st…

ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer vs. Shri Govind Narayan Sharma, Kishangarh

ITA 954/JPR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)

…letter dated 12.03.2015 has not approve the proposal u's 148 for reopening the cases of Shri Prakash Chand Vijayvergiya and Shri Manoj Kumar Agarwal," 6.3The appellant relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sun Engineering reported at 198 ITR 297 (SC) for proposition that only the reasons recorded are to be considered. With all due respect to above decision, if some other concealed income is noticed during the proceeding for the re- assessment, there is no bar to take cognizance of the same. However, the finding to that effect must be clinching. 6.3.1 In the instant case the proceeding st…

ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer vs. Shri Vasu Dev Somani, Kishangarh

ITA 951/JPR/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)

…letter dated 12.03.2015 has not approve the proposal u's 148 for reopening the cases of Shri Prakash Chand Vijayvergiya and Shri Manoj Kumar Agarwal," 6.3The appellant relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sun Engineering reported at 198 ITR 297 (SC) for proposition that only the reasons recorded are to be considered. With all due respect to above decision, if some other concealed income is noticed during the proceeding for the re- assessment, there is no bar to take cognizance of the same. However, the finding to that effect must be clinching. 6.3.1 In the instant case the proceeding st…

ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer vs. Shri Vasu Dev Somani, Kishangarh

ITA 950/JPR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)

…letter dated 12.03.2015 has not approve the proposal u's 148 for reopening the cases of Shri Prakash Chand Vijayvergiya and Shri Manoj Kumar Agarwal," 6.3The appellant relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sun Engineering reported at 198 ITR 297 (SC) for proposition that only the reasons recorded are to be considered. With all due respect to above decision, if some other concealed income is noticed during the proceeding for the re- assessment, there is no bar to take cognizance of the same. However, the finding to that effect must be clinching. 6.3.1 In the instant case the proceeding st…

ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer vs. Shri Vasu Dev Somani, Kishangarh

ITA 949/JPR/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)

…letter dated 12.03.2015 has not approve the proposal u's 148 for reopening the cases of Shri Prakash Chand Vijayvergiya and Shri Manoj Kumar Agarwal," 6.3The appellant relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sun Engineering reported at 198 ITR 297 (SC) for proposition that only the reasons recorded are to be considered. With all due respect to above decision, if some other concealed income is noticed during the proceeding for the re- assessment, there is no bar to take cognizance of the same. However, the finding to that effect must be clinching. 6.3.1 In the instant case the proceeding st…

ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer vs. Smt. Kusum Devi Vijayvargiya, Kishangarh

ITA 945/JPR/2015[211-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2023

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)

…letter dated 12.03.2015 has not approve the proposal u's 148 for reopening the cases of Shri Prakash Chand Vijayvergiya and Shri Manoj Kumar Agarwal," 6.3The appellant relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sun Engineering reported at 198 ITR 297 (SC) for proposition that only the reasons recorded are to be considered. With all due respect to above decision, if some other concealed income is noticed during the proceeding for the re- assessment, there is no bar to take cognizance of the same. However, the finding to that effect must be clinching. 6.3.1 In the instant case the proceeding st…

ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer vs. Smt. Kusum Devi Vijayvargiya, Kishangarh

ITA 944/JPR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)

…letter dated 12.03.2015 has not approve the proposal u's 148 for reopening the cases of Shri Prakash Chand Vijayvergiya and Shri Manoj Kumar Agarwal," 6.3The appellant relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sun Engineering reported at 198 ITR 297 (SC) for proposition that only the reasons recorded are to be considered. With all due respect to above decision, if some other concealed income is noticed during the proceeding for the re- assessment, there is no bar to take cognizance of the same. However, the finding to that effect must be clinching. 6.3.1 In the instant case the proceeding st…

ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer vs. Smt. Sudarshna Somani, Kishangarh

ITA 935/JPR/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)

…letter dated 12.03.2015 has not approve the proposal u's 148 for reopening the cases of Shri Prakash Chand Vijayvergiya and Shri Manoj Kumar Agarwal," 6.3The appellant relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sun Engineering reported at 198 ITR 297 (SC) for proposition that only the reasons recorded are to be considered. With all due respect to above decision, if some other concealed income is noticed during the proceeding for the re- assessment, there is no bar to take cognizance of the same. However, the finding to that effect must be clinching. 6.3.1 In the instant case the proceeding st…