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

ITO vs. M/S Shalom Sankalp Ventures

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1696/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt Asha Vijayaraghavan

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT_DR
Section 147Section 80Section 801

…S Reddy in ITA Nos.1306 & 1307(B)/2014 dated 25-05- 2016. He submitted a copy of this Tribunal order and pointed out that in this case, the Tribunal had followed the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs Trend Electronics 379 ITR 456 and it was held that when the AO failed to furnish the reasons recorded for re-opening of the assessment, the re-assessment order passed by the AO is bad in law and the same was quashed by the Tribunal. He submitted that in the present case also, reasons were not furnished by the AO and hence, the assessment order has been rightly quashed by the…

DCIT 10(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Hexaware Technologies Ltd, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 725/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.725/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta
Section 10ASection 115JSection 14Section 1OSection 70Section 71Section 72

…legal. The Ld. AR of the assessee further argued that Ground against the reopening is squarely covered in his favour by the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Trend Electronics in ITA No.1867 of 2013 dated 16.09.2015 reported vide [2015] 379 ITR 456 (Mum). 4. We have considered the rival contentions of the ld AR for the parties and perused the material placed on record. The notice u/s 148 dated 01.03.2012 was duly served upon the assessee. In reply to the notice u/s 148 the assessee submitted that return already filed on 31.10.2007 may be treated as return filed in response to the notice u/s…

T.N.Sekar, L/H Late T.S.Narasimhan, Salem vs. ITO, Salem

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 68/CHNY/2015[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jul 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.66 & 68/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2002-03 & 2001-02

For Respondent: Sh. P. Radhakrishnan, JCIT
Section 147Section 148

…esentative submitted that non- furnishing of reasons for reopening of assessment would render the entire assessment invalid. The Ld. representative has also placed reliance on the decision of Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in CIT v. Trend Electronics (2015) 61 Taxmann.com 308. Placing reliance on the decision of this Bench of the Tribunal in PVP Ventures Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 65 taxmann.com 221, the Ld. representative submitted that once the reopening of assessment cannot stand on the strength 3 I.T.A. Nos.66 to 68/Mds/15 of the reason recorded under Section 148 of the Act, reassessment cannot be justified by…

T.N.Sekar, Salem vs. ITO, Salem

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 67/CHNY/2015[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jul 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.66 & 68/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2002-03 & 2001-02

For Respondent: Sh. P. Radhakrishnan, JCIT
Section 147Section 148

…esentative submitted that non- furnishing of reasons for reopening of assessment would render the entire assessment invalid. The Ld. representative has also placed reliance on the decision of Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in CIT v. Trend Electronics (2015) 61 Taxmann.com 308. Placing reliance on the decision of this Bench of the Tribunal in PVP Ventures Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 65 taxmann.com 221, the Ld. representative submitted that once the reopening of assessment cannot stand on the strength 3 I.T.A. Nos.66 to 68/Mds/15 of the reason recorded under Section 148 of the Act, reassessment cannot be justified by…

T.N.Sekar, L/H Late S.S.Narasimhan, Salem vs. ITO, Salem

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 66/CHNY/2015[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jul 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.66 & 68/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2002-03 & 2001-02

For Respondent: Sh. P. Radhakrishnan, JCIT
Section 147Section 148

…esentative submitted that non- furnishing of reasons for reopening of assessment would render the entire assessment invalid. The Ld. representative has also placed reliance on the decision of Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in CIT v. Trend Electronics (2015) 61 Taxmann.com 308. Placing reliance on the decision of this Bench of the Tribunal in PVP Ventures Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 65 taxmann.com 221, the Ld. representative submitted that once the reopening of assessment cannot stand on the strength 3 I.T.A. Nos.66 to 68/Mds/15 of the reason recorded under Section 148 of the Act, reassessment cannot be justified by…

Procyon Offshore Services P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 5(1), Mumbai

ITA 4951/MUM/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Pawan Singhआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./4951 & 4952/Mum/2012, आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2004-05 & 2005-06 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. Dolphin Offshore Shipping Ltd. Acit, -5(1) Mumbai. (Formerly Known As M/S. Procycon Offshore Services P.Ltd.),Lic Bldg. Plot No.54, Vs. Sector-Ii,Cbd-Belapur-400 614. Pan:Aaacp 2682 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Vijay Kumar Soni-Dr Assessee By: Shri M. Subramanian-Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30.06.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 13.07.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम िधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर िधिनयम िधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- अनुसार Challenging The Orders,Dated 20/04/2012, Of The Cit (A)-9,Mumbai, The Assessee Has Filed The Appeals For The Above-Mentioned Two Assessment Years(Ay.S.)Raising Various Grounds Of Appeals.Considering The Fact That The Issues Involved In Both The Cases Are Almost Identical, We Are Adjudicating Both Appeals By Single Order.The Details Of Filing Of Returns, Returned Incomes & Assessed Incomes Etc., Can Be Summarised As Under: A.Y. Roi Filed On Returned Assessment Dt. Assessed Cit(A) Order Dt. Income(Rs.) Income(Rs.) 2004-05 25.10.2004 Nil 24.12.2009 1,05,47,180/- 20.04.2012 2005-06 28.10.2005 Nil 24.12.2009 95,910/- 20.04.2012

For Appellant: Shri M. Subramanian-ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Soni-DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 254(1)Section 37

…orded by the AO.In the case before us, there is no evidence that the reasons were handed over to the assessee or validly served upon it. Therefore, assessment order passed has to be held as invalid.Here,we would like to refer to the case of Trend Electronics (379 ITR 456),wherein the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held as under: “It is axiomatic that the power to reopen a completed assessment under the Act is an exceptional power and whenever the Revenue seeks to exercise such power, it must strictly comply with the pre-requisite conditions, viz., recording of reasons to indicate that the Assessing Officer had rea…

Kashan Ghaswala, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 8126/MUM/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2003-04
For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69ASection 69C

…ompletion of assessment is bad in law. Our attention was invited to various judicial pronouncements which are as under :- i) Trend Electronics, ITA No.902/Mum/2013, order dated 25-3- 2013,which was confirmed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court reported at [2015] 379 ITR 456 (Bom); ii) Industrial Development Bank of India, ITA No.1391/Mum/2004, order dated 12-12-2012; (iii) Shri M.R.Seetharam (Ind.), ITA No.926/Bang/2014, order dated 9-10-2015. 18. We have considered rival contentions and found from the record that a survey action u/s. 133A was conducted on 11th & 12th May, 2007 at the premises of M/s. Alliance Hotel…

Hotel City Palace, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 8125/MUM/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2003-04
For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69ASection 69C

…ompletion of assessment is bad in law. Our attention was invited to various judicial pronouncements which are as under :- i) Trend Electronics, ITA No.902/Mum/2013, order dated 25-3- 2013,which was confirmed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court reported at [2015] 379 ITR 456 (Bom); ii) Industrial Development Bank of India, ITA No.1391/Mum/2004, order dated 12-12-2012; (iii) Shri M.R.Seetharam (Ind.), ITA No.926/Bang/2014, order dated 9-10-2015. 18. We have considered rival contentions and found from the record that a survey action u/s. 133A was conducted on 11th & 12th May, 2007 at the premises of M/s. Alliance Hotel…

Alliance Hotels, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 8124/MUM/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2003-04
For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69ASection 69C

…ompletion of assessment is bad in law. Our attention was invited to various judicial pronouncements which are as under :- i) Trend Electronics, ITA No.902/Mum/2013, order dated 25-3- 2013,which was confirmed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court reported at [2015] 379 ITR 456 (Bom); ii) Industrial Development Bank of India, ITA No.1391/Mum/2004, order dated 12-12-2012; (iii) Shri M.R.Seetharam (Ind.), ITA No.926/Bang/2014, order dated 9-10-2015. 18. We have considered rival contentions and found from the record that a survey action u/s. 133A was conducted on 11th & 12th May, 2007 at the premises of M/s. Alliance Hotel…

Alliance Hotels, Mumbai vs. ACIT 12(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4074/MUM/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2002-03
For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69ASection 69C

…ompletion of assessment is bad in law. Our attention was invited to various judicial pronouncements which are as under :- i) Trend Electronics, ITA No.902/Mum/2013, order dated 25-3- 2013,which was confirmed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court reported at [2015] 379 ITR 456 (Bom); ii) Industrial Development Bank of India, ITA No.1391/Mum/2004, order dated 12-12-2012; (iii) Shri M.R.Seetharam (Ind.), ITA No.926/Bang/2014, order dated 9-10-2015. 18. We have considered rival contentions and found from the record that a survey action u/s. 133A was conducted on 11th & 12th May, 2007 at the premises of M/s. Alliance Hotel…

Alliance Hotels, Mumbai vs. ACIT 12(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4073/MUM/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2001-02
For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69ASection 69C

…ompletion of assessment is bad in law. Our attention was invited to various judicial pronouncements which are as under :- i) Trend Electronics, ITA No.902/Mum/2013, order dated 25-3- 2013,which was confirmed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court reported at [2015] 379 ITR 456 (Bom); ii) Industrial Development Bank of India, ITA No.1391/Mum/2004, order dated 12-12-2012; (iii) Shri M.R.Seetharam (Ind.), ITA No.926/Bang/2014, order dated 9-10-2015. 18. We have considered rival contentions and found from the record that a survey action u/s. 133A was conducted on 11th & 12th May, 2007 at the premises of M/s. Alliance Hotel…

M/S. Ujagar Holdings Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2205/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Ujagar Holdings Pvt. Ltd., 8-D, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-27(2), Hansalaya, 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi New Delhi Gir/Pan : Aaacu1678F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 147Section 148Section 3

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/s. Ujagar Holdings Pvt. Ltd., 8-D, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-27(2), Hansalaya, 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi New Delhi GIR/PAN : AAACU1678F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by S/sh. Salil Kapoor & Sanat Kapoor, Adv. & Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Respondent by Sh. P. DAM Kanunjna, Sr.DR Date of hearing 10.03.2016 Date of pronouncement 16.05.2016 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: This appeal of the assessee is directed against order dated 16/02/2015 of…