CIT v. Trend Electronics

379 ITR 456High Court2015#2226 most cited

What is CIT v. Trend Electronics authority for?

The non-furnishing of recorded reasons for reopening an assessment under Section 147, even if partially, is a jurisdictional requirement. Failure to provide these reasons to the assessee upon request renders the reassessment proceedings and order bad in law, leading to their quashing.

52

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Trend Electronics · Section 147 · Section 148 · non-furnishing of reasons · reopening of assessment · reassessment proceedings · jurisdictional defect · income escaping assessment · quashing reassessment · reasons to believe

Also reported as

61 Taxmann.com 308

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 143(3)Section 143(2)Section 142(1)Section 68Section 143(1)Section 151

Issues it is cited on

section 292bbsection 151(2)section 292breopening of assessmentsection 292section 29notice under section 148income escaping assessmentreason to believeescapement of incomenon-application of mindreassessment proceedings

Judgments citing CIT v. Trend Electronics

Lasco Chemie Private Limited, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(2), New Delhi, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3811/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarlasco Chemie Private Vs. Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward-15(2), Delhi 10489 Kalptaru, Sadar Thana Road Motia Khan, New Delhi 110055 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcl 3502 E Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 250

…of information received from Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation), was not justified when there was no allegation of assessee's failure to disclose truly and fully material facts necessary for assessment - Coronation Agro Industries Ltd. v. DCIT: 379 ITR 456 (Bombay) - Held that the reasons did not indicate the basis for the Assessing Officer to come to reasonable belief that there had been any escapement of income on the ground that the modifications done in the client code was not on account of a gen error, originally occurred while punching the trade; while material available was that there was a…

Arun Kumar Maurya, Lucknow vs. ITO-2(1), Lucknow

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

ITA 415/LKW/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 50CSection 56Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

…at when no notice under section 143(2) of the Act has been issued, the entire assumption of jurisdiction fails and the assessment proceedings are required to be quashed. Further the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Trend Electronics reported in 379 ITR 456 (Bom) had categorically held that where no reasons recorded for reopening of assessment were furnished to the assessee, it becomes fatal to the entire reassessment proceedings per se and accordingly, the reassessment proceedings are required to be quashed. 6. In view of the above, we find no infirmity in the action of the Learned CITA in quashing…

ACIT, Circle 3, Lucknow vs. Anshuman Singh, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed

ITA 342/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow04 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 139Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…urnishing the same are strict requirements of the Statute. When there was no furnishing of the recorded reasons in spite of a request for the same and still the assessment was made, such assessment cannot be legal as decided in CIT Vs Trend Electronics [2015] 379 ITR 456 (BOM) after referring to the requirements found in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd.'s case and following the decision in CIT Vs Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. [2012] 340 ITR 66 (BOM). The present facts of the appellant are same and as also being held in the case of M/s. Tata Communications Ltd. (formerly Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd) vs the JCIT, Special Ran…

Income Tax Officer, Ward 16(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Kailash Mulchand Kothari, Mumbai

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is allowed, and the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2727/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 10(38)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…first respondent did not decide the objections separately which he is duty- bound to decide. ................. That being so, the orders of assessment passed in all these four petitions are quashed and set aside.” 9. Similarly, in CIT v. Trend Electronics [(379 ITR 456) (Bom)], the Hon’ble High Court categorically observed that the recording of reasons, their furnishing to the assessee upon request, and the disposal of objections thereon by way of a speaking order are not procedural formalities but form part of the jurisdictional requirement for invoking Section 147. The Court further clarified that no inferenc…

Satish Kumar, Bhiwani vs. ITO Ward-2, Bhiwani

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6154/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshsatish Kumar Bhiwani, Vs. Ito, Village Nathuwas Po Ward No. 2, Paluwas, Bhiwani, Bhiwani Haryana, (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Axt[L7397N Assessee By : Shri Subhash Chander Jindal, Adv Revenue By: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/07/2025

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Chander Jindal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 44A

…whether the non-furnishing of reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment would become fatal to the reassessment proceedings per se was subject matter of consideration by the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Trend Electronics reported in 379 ITR 456 (Bom) wherein, it was held that where reasons were not furnished for reopening of assessment even when assessee sought for the same, the reassessment order could be bad in law. Respectfully following the same, we quash the reassessment proceedings framed in the hands of the assessee for the year under consideration as it is in violation of decisi…

Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1)(1), Merut, Meerut vs. Ashish Gupta, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 560/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshincome Tax Officer, Vs. Ashish Gupta, Ward-1(1)(1), R/O 125, Kamla Villa, Civil Meerut Lines, Saket, Meerut, Up (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aatpg5413C

For Appellant: Shri Sankalp Malik, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…at when no notice under section 143(2) of the Act has been issued, the entire assumption of jurisdiction fails and the assessment proceedings are required to be quashed. Further the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Trend Electronics reported in 379 ITR 456 (Bom) had categorically held that where no reasons recorded for reopening of assessment were furnished to the assessee, it becomes fatal to the entire reassessment proceedings per se and accordingly, the reassessment proceedings are required to be quashed. Ashish Gupta 6. In view of the above, we find no infirmity in the action of the Learned CI…

Ambaji Avenues Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 9(1) (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5216/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Malpani, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…easons will also necessarily meet the same fate i.e. render the assessment order on reopening the notice bad. 14 M/s. Ambaji Avenues Private Limited 17. This Court further observe that the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Trend Electronics (2015) 379 ITR 456 (Bombay) also reminded that this Court (Mumbai High Court) in CIT Vs Videsh Sachar Nigam Ltd. (2012) 340 ITR 66 (Bom) has held “that it is axiomatic that power to reopen a completed assessment under the Act, is an exceptional power and whenever Revenue seeks to exercise such power it must consistently comply with the prerequisite conditions viz.…

Mahendra Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 654/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Mar 2025AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Sarwan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl.CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

…or reopening of the assessment were not furnished to the assesse till the completion of the assessment then reassessment order cannot be upheld and thus dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. Even in the case of CIT vs Trend Electronics reported in (2015) 379 ITR 456, Hon'ble Bombay High Court has categorically held as under:- ''Income Tax Act 1961 Section 147 and 148 Reopening of assessment – validity of - Notice - Objections – Recording of reasons and furnishing of reasons to be strictly complied with – Failure on part of assessee to furnish reasons recorded to assessee when sought for Reassessment not val…

Raghunandan Bhomia, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-4(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5724/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…reopening of assessment, though repeatedly asked by assessee, were furnished only after completion of assessment, reassessment order could not be upheld [In favour of assessee)" 11.6 The jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Trend Electronics (2015) 61 Taxmann.com 308 (Bom.) (Pg.47-50) wherein it was held that 6 Raghunandan Bhomia "IT: Where reasons were not furnished for reopening of an assessment even when assessee sought for same, reassessment order would be bad in law" "Section 147, read with section 143 of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Income escaping assessment-General (Reason's supply of) Assessment…

Amit Khatri, Sonipat vs. ITO, Ward 1, Sonipat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as

ITA 2430/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2430/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 बनाम Amit Khatri Income Tax Officer Ward No.30, Garhi Bhraman, Vs. Ward-1, Sonipat, Haryana. Sonipat, Haryana. Pan No. Bdspk3438G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 147Section 148Section 151

…I.T.A. No. 2430/Del/2023 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2430/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 बनाम Amit Khatri Income Tax Officer Ward No.30, Garhi Bhraman, Vs. Ward-1, Sonipat, Haryana. Sonipat, Haryana. PAN No. BDSPK3438G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Suresh K Gupta, CA िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee by Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue by सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date of hearing: 13.12.2024 18.12.2024 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement on आदेश /O R D E R This appeal is filed by the assessee agai…

Sachin Jain, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 47(2), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3246/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roysachin Jain Vs. Ito,Ward-47(2) 1732, Mz Floor, Nayi Drumshape Building, Basti, Naya Bazar, Delhi- 110002 Delhi – 110006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aijpj5875F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…raised by the assessee to the reopening of assessment in terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts India Ltd. (supra). We further find that Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Trend Electronics (2015) 379 ITR 456 (Bom), after considering the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (2012) 340 ITR 66 (Bom) has held that recorded reasons as laid down by the Apex Court must be furnished to the assessee when sought for so as to enable the assessee to object to the same before the AO. It has further held that the r…

Dcitcc6.2, Mumbai vs. Top Class Capital Markets Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee i

ITA 974/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, Ld. A.R. a/wFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, Ld. CIT DR
Section 115JSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68

…m.). Further, in fact, partial furnishing of reasons will also necessarily meet the same fate i.e. render the assessment order on reopening the notice bad. 15.6 We further observe that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Trend Electronics (2015) 379 ITR 456 (Bombay) also reminded that this Court (Mumbai High Court) in CIT Vs Videsh Sachar Nigam Ltd. (2012) 340 ITR 66 (Bom) has held “that it is axiomatic that power to reopen a completed assessment under the Act, is an exceptional power and whenever Revenue seeks to exercise such power it must consistently comply with the prerequisite conditions viz.…

Top Class Capital Markets Private Limited, Bombay Mutual Building, Fort vs. ACIT Central Circle 6 (2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee i

ITA 709/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 115JSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68

…om.). Further, in fact, partial furnishing of reasons will also necessarily meet the same fate i.e. render the assessment order on reopening the notice bad. 15.6 We further observe that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Trend Electronics (2015) 379 ITR 456 (Bombay) also reminded that this Court (Mumbai High Court) in CIT Vs Videsh Sachar Nigam Ltd. (2012) 340 ITR 66 (Bom) has held “that it is axiomatic that power to reopen a completed assessment under the Act, is an exceptional power and whenever Revenue seeks to exercise such power it must consistently comply with the prerequisite conditions viz.…

Akshay Rangraoji Umale, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle 12 Pune, Pune

The appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED in above terms

ITA 1428/PUN/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 1428/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2019-19 Akshay Rangroji Umale A-402, Pride Panorama, Shivaji Hsg. Society, Sb Road, Pune-411016 Pan: Aampu7528K . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Kishor Phadke [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Sonal Sonkavde [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 5Section 6(1)Section 90

…॥आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण, पुणे ‘एस.एम.सी.’ न्यायपीठ, पुणे में ॥ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PUNE ‘SMC’ BENCH, PUNE BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1428/PUN/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2019-19 Akshay Rangroji Umale A-402, Pride Panorama, Shivaji Hsg. Society, SB Road, Pune-411016 PAN: AAMPU7528K . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनामम / V/s Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-12, Pune . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee by : Mr Kishor Phadke [‘Ld. AR’] Reve…

Monika Chakarvarty, Kota vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Circle

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 413/JPR/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jan 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 412 & 413/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2017-18 Monika Chakarvarty Prop. M/s Vipin Medicals, Nayapura, Kota. cuke Vs. DCIT Circle, Kota LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AELPC 3801 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Sidharth Ranka (Adv.), Shri Sorabh Harsh (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Anup Singh (Ad

For Appellant: Shri Sidharth Ranka (Adv.) &For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…or reopening of the assessment were not furnished to the assesse till the completion of the assessment then reassessment order cannot be upheld and thus dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. Even in the case of CIT vs Trend Electronics reported in (2015) 379 ITR 456, Hon’ble Bombay High Court has categorically held as under:- ‘’Income Tax Act 1961 Section 147 and 148 Reopening of assessment – validity of – Notice – Objections – Recording of reasons and furnishing of reasons to be strictly complied with – Failure on part of assessee to furnish reasons recorded to assessee when sought for – Reassessment not va…

Monika Chakarvarty, Kota vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Kota

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 412/JPR/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jan 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sidharth Ranka (Adv.) &For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…or reopening of the assessment were not furnished to the assesse till the completion of the assessment then reassessment order cannot be upheld and thus dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. Even in the case of CIT vs Trend Electronics reported in (2015) 379 ITR 456, Hon’ble Bombay High Court has categorically held as under:- ‘’Income Tax Act 1961 Section 147 and 148 Reopening of assessment – validity of – Notice – Objections – Recording of reasons and furnishing of reasons to be strictly complied with – Failure on part of assessee to furnish reasons recorded to assessee when sought for – Reassessment not va…

Tahera Abida Ghori, Hyderabad vs. Duputy Commissioner of Income Tax -2, International Taxation, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 777/HYD/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Dec 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 131Section 143(2)Section 148

…re the learned CIT (A) has observed as under: 12. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd reported in (2012) 340 ITR 66 (Bom.) and the decision in the case of CIT vs. trend Electronics (2015) 379 ITR 456 (Bom) and various other decisions filed in the paper book, learned AR submitted that when the reasons were not supplied to the assessee before completion of the assessment or when there is inordinate delay in supply of the reasons despite asking for the same, such re-assessement proceedings are invalid in the eyes of law. 13. Learned AR further…

Parametric Trading Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle-4(1), Indore

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 84/IND/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore12 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S.Parametric Trading A.C.I.T., Pvt.Ltd., Circle 4(1), 205, Sujata Chambers, 2Nd Indore. Floor, Abhichand Gandhi Vs. Marg,Off Katha Bazar Masjid (W), Mumbai (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aagca4207J Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta & Shri Shailesh Parmar, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12.06.2023

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151

…e issued u/s 148. The ld. Authorized Representative then relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble Bombay High in the case of New Era Shipping Limited vs. CIT, 430 ITR 431 (Bom). He has also relied upon the following decisions :- (a) CIT vs. Trend Electronics, (379 ITR 456). (b) CIT vs. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited, (340 ITR 66) The ld. Authorized Representative has also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of River Valley Meadows and Townships P.Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT, (2022) 284 Taxman 536 (Bom)(H.C.) and submitted that notice Page 6 of 25 Prametric Trading Co.P.Ltd.,Indore 7 A.Y.2011…

Banwari Lal Pareek, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-1(5), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 135/JPR/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jul 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Ashok K Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT
Section 148

…or reopening of the assessment were not furnished to the assesse till the completion of the assessment then reassessment order cannot be upheld and thus dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. Even in the case of CIT vs Trend Electronics reported in (2015) 379 ITR 456, Hon’ble Bombay High Court has categorically held as under:- ‘’Income Tax Act 1961 Section 147 and 148 Reopening of assessment – validity of – Notice – Objections – Recording of reasons and furnishing of reasons to be strictly complied with – Failure on part of assessee to furnish reasons recorded to assessee when sought for – Reassessment not va…

Afzar Ahmad Khan, Noida vs. ITO Ward 47(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed, as indicated above

ITA 2062/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 147Section 148

…der section 147 of the Act invalid. In support of such contention, he relied upon the following decisions: 1. Principal CIT Vs. Jagat Talkies Distributors, (2017) 85 taxmann.com 189/398 ITR 13 (Delhi) 2. CIT Vs. Trend Electronics, (2015) 61 taxmann.com 308/379 ITR 456 3. Kothari Metals Vs. ITO, (2015) 377 ITR 581/288 CTR 606 (Ker.) 6. The learned Departmental Representative submitted, the Assessing Officer having found that the receipts shown by the assessee are lesser than the actual receipts which have been 5 AY: 2010-11 subjected to TDS, has reopened the assessment under section 147 of the Act. 7. We ha…

CIT v. Trend Electronics (379 ITR 456) — Cited in 52 Judgments | BharatTax