CIT v. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd.

340 ITR 66High Court2012#978 most cited

What is CIT v. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. authority for?

A reassessment order cannot be upheld if the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment under Section 147 are furnished to the assessee only after the completion of the reassessment, or are not furnished at all. The assessee has a fundamental right to be provided with these reasons to file objections.

110

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. · Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. · Section 147 · Section 148 · reopening of assessment · reassessment proceedings · reasons recorded · furnishing of reasons · notice under section 148 · void ab initio · income escaping assessment · objection to reasons

Also reported as

21 Taxmann.com 5321 Taxmann 53

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 151Section 68Section 69ASection 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

income escaping assessmentreopening of assessmentescapement of incomesection 151reason to believenotice under section 148tangible materialreassessment proceedingsspeaking orderfirst appealsection 148unexplained money

Judgments citing CIT v. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd.

Janak J. Mehta, Mumbai vs. CIT -36, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 335/MUM/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Nov 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Blejanak J. Mehta (Huf) V. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (A) -36 502, Amrapali, Telly Gally Income Tax Office Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400069 Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E), Mumbai -400051 Pan: Aachj5173M (Appellant) (Respondent) Janak J. Mehta V. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (A) -36 502, Amrapali, Telly Gally Income Tax Office Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400069 Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E), Mumbai -400051 Pan: Aagpm4205M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh BandiFor Respondent: Ms. Kranti Yadav
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234Section 234B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER Janak J. Mehta (HUF) v. Commissioner of Income-tax (A) -36 502, Amrapali, Telly Gally Income Tax Office Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400069 Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E), Mumbai -400051 PAN: AACHJ5173M (Appellant) (Respondent) Janak J. Mehta v. Commissioner of Income-tax (A) -36 502, Amrapali, Telly Gally Income Tax Office Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400069 Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E), Mumbai -400051 PAN: AAGPM4205M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Shaile…

Janak J. Mehta HUF, Mumbai vs. CIT - 36, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 334/MUM/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Nov 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Blejanak J. Mehta (Huf) V. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (A) -36 502, Amrapali, Telly Gally Income Tax Office Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400069 Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E), Mumbai -400051 Pan: Aachj5173M (Appellant) (Respondent) Janak J. Mehta V. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (A) -36 502, Amrapali, Telly Gally Income Tax Office Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400069 Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E), Mumbai -400051 Pan: Aagpm4205M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh BandiFor Respondent: Ms. Kranti Yadav
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234Section 234B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER Janak J. Mehta (HUF) v. Commissioner of Income-tax (A) -36 502, Amrapali, Telly Gally Income Tax Office Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400069 Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E), Mumbai -400051 PAN: AACHJ5173M (Appellant) (Respondent) Janak J. Mehta v. Commissioner of Income-tax (A) -36 502, Amrapali, Telly Gally Income Tax Office Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400069 Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E), Mumbai -400051 PAN: AAGPM4205M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Shaile…

Dipesh Jayantilal Gudhka Prop. of M/S Rishi Corporation, Bhiwandi vs. ITO Ward-1(1), Mumbai

In the result, while the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the terms indicated above, the appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed

ITA 187/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2021AY 2009-10
Section 144Section 151

…axed in the hand of the assessee was 100% and not 25% of bogus purchases as has been held to be taxable by learned CIT(A) in the impugned order. Learned counsel for the assessee relies upon is binding precedent in the case of CIT vs Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (340 ITR 66) & CIT vs. Trend Electronics (379 ITR 456), in support of the proposition that reasons for reopening not having been furnished to the assessee would vitiate the reassessment proceedings. 6. I have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and duly considered facts of the case in the light of applicable legal position. 7. I find t…

ITO Ward-1(1), Kalyan vs. Shri Dipesh Jayantilal Gudhka, Mumbai

In the result, while the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the terms indicated above, the appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed

ITA 2014/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2021AY 2009-10
Section 144Section 151

…axed in the hand of the assessee was 100% and not 25% of bogus purchases as has been held to be taxable by learned CIT(A) in the impugned order. Learned counsel for the assessee relies upon is binding precedent in the case of CIT vs Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (340 ITR 66) & CIT vs. Trend Electronics (379 ITR 456), in support of the proposition that reasons for reopening not having been furnished to the assessee would vitiate the reassessment proceedings. 6. I have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and duly considered facts of the case in the light of applicable legal position. 7. I find t…

Chetna Sanjay Patil, Palghar vs. ITO, Ward, 1 Palghar, Palghar

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 6103/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Chetna Sanjay Patil, Ito-Ward 1, C-1, Indraprasth Building, Aayakar Bhavan, Income Tax Bhim Nagar, Trapur Road, Office, Bidco Road, Tal. & Dist. Boisar (W), Vs. Palghar – 401404 Dist. Palghar - 401501 Pan: Ahgpp8098N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Subodh Ratnaparakhi (Ar) Revenue By : Ms. Smita Verma (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/06/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/07/2021

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparakhi (AR)For Respondent: Ms. Smita Verma (DR)
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…itted factual position. 5. Thus, the issue arising for consideration is, what is the impact/effect of non-communication of reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT vs Videsh Snachar Nigam Ltd. [20212] 340 ITR 66 (Bom) has held that non communication of reasons recorded for re-opening of assessment is a jurisdictional error, hence, make the assessment bad in law. Therefore, no second chance can be given to the AO for rectifying such defect. The same view has also been expressed in case of CIT vs. Trend Electronics (2015) 61 taxmann.com 308 (Bom). Though, l…

Shri Chand Singh, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

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

ITA 3861/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 28

…iveshafts 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 recording of reasons and furnishing of the same has to be strictly complied with as it is a jurisdictional issue and in the absence of r…

Shri Chand Singh, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Gurgaon

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

ITA 3860/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 28

…iveshafts 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 recording of reasons and furnishing of the same has to be strictly complied with as it is a jurisdictional issue and in the absence of r…

Growmore Research & Assets Management Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC 4 (3), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 259/MUM/2019[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Apr 2021AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 1996-97

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel, D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

…The ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: a. Rina S. Mehta v. DCIT [ITA No. 3120/Mum/2015] dated 17.07.2019 b. ITO v. Pallavi Vij'en Jhaveri & vice-versa [ITA No. 5998/Mum/2017 & CO No. 225/Mum/2018] dated 17.12.2019 c. CIT v. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd [340 ITR 66 (Bom.)] d. CIT v. IDBI Ltd [76 taxann.com 227 (Bom.)] e. PCIT v. V. Ramaiah [103 taxmann.com 202 (SC)]. The Ld. A.R., therefore, submits that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the coordinate benches in the cases of related parties as stated above and therefore, the reassessment proceedings may kindly be quashed. 3 M/s. Growmore Re…

ACIT Cir. 12(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Bharti Axa Life Insurance Company Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2930/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2021AY 2007-08
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 149Section 151

…reasons recorded before he proceeds to assess the income, which according to him, has escaped Assessment. In fact, non furnishing of reasons would make an Assessment Order bad as held by this Court in CIT v. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. [2012] 21 taxmann.com 53/340 ITR 66. In fact, partial furnishing of reasons will also necessarily meet the same fate i.e. render the Assessment Order on re- opening notice bad. Therefore, on the above ground itself, the question as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law as it is covered by the decision of this Court in Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd.'s, case (supra…

M/S. Growmore Research & Assets Management Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. - 4(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 504/MUM/2019[1991-92]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2021AY 1991-92

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 1991-92 Dcit, M/S. Growmore Research Cent. Cir.-4(3) & Assets Management Central Range-4, Ltd., Room No.1921, 32, Madhuli Apartment, Vs. 19Th Floor, 3Rd Floor, Air India Bldg., Dr. Annie Besant Road, Nariman Point, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaacg4936C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 1991-92 M/S. Growmore Research Dcit & Assets Management Cent. Cir.-4(3), Ltd., Central Range-4, 32, Madhuli Apartment, Room No.1921, 3Rd Floor, Vs. 19Th Floor, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Air India Bldg., Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Nariman Point, Pan: Aaacg4936C Mumbai - 400021

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel, D.R
Section 147Section 14ASection 234Section 69

…initio. The Ld. A.R. relied on the following decisions: 1. Rina S. Mehta v. DCIT [ITA No. 3120/Mum/2015] dated 17.07. 2. ITO v. Pallavi Vijen Jhaveri& vice-versa [ITA No. 5998/Mum/2017 & CO No.225/Mum/2018] dated 17.12.2019 3. CIT v. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd [340 ITR 66 (Bom.)]. 4. CIT v. IDBI Ltd [76 taxann.com 227 (Bom.)] 5. PCIT v. V. Ramaiah [103 taxmann.com 202 (SC)]. 7. The Ld. D.R., on the other hand, relied on the order of authorities below. So far as the 1st and 2nd contentions of the assessee are concerned, the ld DR relied on the orders of authorities below. On the third without prejudice plea of not s…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-4(3), Central Range-4, Mumbai vs. M/S.Growmore Research & Asset Management Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1196/MUM/2019[1991-92]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2021AY 1991-92

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 1991-92 Dcit, M/S. Growmore Research Cent. Cir.-4(3) & Assets Management Central Range-4, Ltd., Room No.1921, 32, Madhuli Apartment, Vs. 19Th Floor, 3Rd Floor, Air India Bldg., Dr. Annie Besant Road, Nariman Point, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaacg4936C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 1991-92 M/S. Growmore Research Dcit & Assets Management Cent. Cir.-4(3), Ltd., Central Range-4, 32, Madhuli Apartment, Room No.1921, 3Rd Floor, Vs. 19Th Floor, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Air India Bldg., Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Nariman Point, Pan: Aaacg4936C Mumbai - 400021

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel, D.R
Section 147Section 14ASection 234Section 69

…initio. The Ld. A.R. relied on the following decisions: 1. Rina S. Mehta v. DCIT [ITA No. 3120/Mum/2015] dated 17.07. 2. ITO v. Pallavi Vijen Jhaveri& vice-versa [ITA No. 5998/Mum/2017 & CO No.225/Mum/2018] dated 17.12.2019 3. CIT v. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd [340 ITR 66 (Bom.)]. 4. CIT v. IDBI Ltd [76 taxann.com 227 (Bom.)] 5. PCIT v. V. Ramaiah [103 taxmann.com 202 (SC)]. 7. The Ld. D.R., on the other hand, relied on the order of authorities below. So far as the 1st and 2nd contentions of the assessee are concerned, the ld DR relied on the orders of authorities below. On the third without prejudice plea of not s…

Vikas Ganpat Mane, Kalyan vs. ITO Ward(3)(2), Kalyan

In the result, appeal for assessment year 2007-08 is allowed

ITA 7493/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Vikas Awasthyआअसुं. 7491/भ ुं/2018 (यन.ि. 2007-08) आअसुं. 7492/भ ुं/2018 (यन.ि. 2008-09) आअसुं. 7493/भ ुं/2018 (यन.ि. 2009-10) Vikas Ganpat Mane, D-6,303, Gaondevi Nagar, Shankar Pawse Road, Kalyan (East) 421 306 Pan:Akkpm4583C ...... अऩीराथी /Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Subramanian, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Mishra
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

…ent. The Assessing Officer completed reassessment in total violation of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. The ld. Counsel for the assessee in support of his submissions placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) CIT vs. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd., 340 ITR 66 (Bom) (ii) New Era Shipping Ltd. vs. CIT, 430 ITR 431(Bom) (iii) CIT vs. Fomento Resorts & Hotels Ltd., Income Tax Appeal No.71 of 2006 decided on 27/11/2006(Bom-Goa Bench) 4. Per contra Shri Sushil Mishra representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned order and prayed for dismissing the appeal of assessee. The ld. Departmental Repr…

Vikas Ganpat Mane, Kalyan vs. ITO Ward (3)(2), Kalyan

In the result, appeal for assessment year 2007-08 is allowed

ITA 7492/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Vikas Awasthyआअसुं. 7491/भ ुं/2018 (यन.ि. 2007-08) आअसुं. 7492/भ ुं/2018 (यन.ि. 2008-09) आअसुं. 7493/भ ुं/2018 (यन.ि. 2009-10) Vikas Ganpat Mane, D-6,303, Gaondevi Nagar, Shankar Pawse Road, Kalyan (East) 421 306 Pan:Akkpm4583C ...... अऩीराथी /Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Subramanian, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Mishra
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

…ent. The Assessing Officer completed reassessment in total violation of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. The ld. Counsel for the assessee in support of his submissions placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) CIT vs. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd., 340 ITR 66 (Bom) (ii) New Era Shipping Ltd. vs. CIT, 430 ITR 431(Bom) (iii) CIT vs. Fomento Resorts & Hotels Ltd., Income Tax Appeal No.71 of 2006 decided on 27/11/2006(Bom-Goa Bench) 4. Per contra Shri Sushil Mishra representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned order and prayed for dismissing the appeal of assessee. The ld. Departmental Repr…

Vikas Ganpat Mane, Kalyan vs. ITO Ward (3)(2), Kalyan

In the result, appeal for assessment year 2007-08 is allowed

ITA 7491/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Vikas Awasthyआअसुं. 7491/भ ुं/2018 (यन.ि. 2007-08) आअसुं. 7492/भ ुं/2018 (यन.ि. 2008-09) आअसुं. 7493/भ ुं/2018 (यन.ि. 2009-10) Vikas Ganpat Mane, D-6,303, Gaondevi Nagar, Shankar Pawse Road, Kalyan (East) 421 306 Pan:Akkpm4583C ...... अऩीराथी /Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Subramanian, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Mishra
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

…ent. The Assessing Officer completed reassessment in total violation of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. The ld. Counsel for the assessee in support of his submissions placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) CIT vs. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd., 340 ITR 66 (Bom) (ii) New Era Shipping Ltd. vs. CIT, 430 ITR 431(Bom) (iii) CIT vs. Fomento Resorts & Hotels Ltd., Income Tax Appeal No.71 of 2006 decided on 27/11/2006(Bom-Goa Bench) 4. Per contra Shri Sushil Mishra representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned order and prayed for dismissing the appeal of assessee. The ld. Departmental Repr…

Karan Khurana, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 48(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1783/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 151

…his contention, he has relied upon following decisions: • PCIT Vs. Jagat Talkies Distributors 85 taxmann.com 189 (Del.) • PCIT vs. Ramaiah 103 taxmanncom 201 (Kar.) • CIT vs. M/s Trend Electronics 61 taxmann.com 308 (Bom.) • CIT vs. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (340 ITR 66) (Bom.) • CIT vs. Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd. dated 27.11.2006 (Bom.) • CIT vs. IDBI Ltd. dated 19.09.2016 (Bom.) 8. On the other hand, Ld. DR submitted that it is a case of HSBC Bank account at Noida. The conduct of the assessee is relevant that assessee did not show this bank account to the Revenue Department and in other year also assesse…

DCIT, Central Circle - 1(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Alembic Merchants Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of revenue fails

ITA 1826/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Central Cir-1(1), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Alembic Merchants Pvt. Ltd Pan: Aacca 0918Q Appellant Respondent

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153(2)Section 68

…reasons recorded before he proceeds to assess the income, which according to him, has escaped Assessment. In fact, non furnishing of reasons would make an Assessment Order bad as held by this Court in CIT v. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. [2012] 21 taxmann.com 53, 340 ITR 66. In fact, partial furnishing of reasons will also necessarily meet the same fate i.e. render the Assessment Order on re- opening notice bad. Therefore, on the aboveground itself, the question as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law as it is covered by the decision of this Court in Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd.’s case (supra)…

M/S. Shree Balkishan Agarwal Glass Industries Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 5798/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2005-06 Shree Balkishan Agarwal Glass Vs Dcit, Industries Ltd., Circle-8(1), C/O Sarvam & Associates, New Delhi. 403, Klj Tower North, B-5, Netaji Subhash Place, District Centre, Pitampura, Delhi. Pan: Aabcs2870C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suresh Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.09.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…ITR 19) (SC) ii) Sabh Infrastructure vs ACIT in W.P.(c) 1357/2016 Dated: 25.09.2017 (Del) iii) Allana Cold Storage Ltd. v ITO (287 ITR 1) (Bom.) iv) CIT vs M/s Trend Electronics in ITA No. 1867 of 2013 dated 16.09.2015 (Bom) v) CIT v Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. 340 ITR 66 (Bom) vi) Inderjeet Singh Sachdeva vs. DCIT in ITA No.6611/Del/2013 vii) Ujagar Holdings Pvt Ltd vs ITO in ITA No.2205/Del/2015 viii) Sh. Balwant Rai Wadhwa Vs ITO in ITA 4806/Del/2010 ix) M/s. Kothari Metals Vs. ITO in Writ Appeal No. 218/2015, dated 14/08/2015 (Kar) x) KSS Petron Private Ltd vs. ACIT ITA No.224 of 2014, dated 03.10.2016 (Bom); x…

Sri Bidyadhar Behera, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Circle-4(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 140/CTK/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack10 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year : 2014-2015

For Appellant: Shri D.Parida/C.Parida, ArsFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Siva Nanda, DR
Section 147Section 148

…trenuously submitted that it is the settled law that the AO is doubt bound to supply the reasons recorded to the assessee especially when the assessee had asked for the reasons recorded. Ld A.R. also placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay (2012) 340 ITR 66 (Bombay), wherein it is held that non-supply of reasons recorded to issue a reopening notice would make the order of assessment passed thereon bad as being without jurisdiction. 4. Supporting to the action of the Assessing Officer as well as ld CIT(A), ld Sr. DR submitted that the ld CIT(A) was right in dismissing the contention/ground of the as…

Babulal H. Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-19(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 7413/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Devendra Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: R. Bhoopathi, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

…assessing officer in completing the assessment without providing the copy of reasons recorded u/s. 148(2), thereby violating the principle/procedure laid down in case of: (a) GKN Driveshaft (I) Ltd. vs. ITO [259 ITR 19] (b) CIT vs. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. [340 ITR 66 (2011)] (c) CIT v. Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd. (ITA No. 71 of 2006) (d) CIT v. Trend Electronics (ITA No. 1867 of 2013) (e) CIT v. IDBI Ltd. (ITA No. 494 of 2014)” 3. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention of the Bench to the delay of 10 days in filing the appeal which the ld. Counsel tried to explain by filing co…

Budhiya Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1231/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1231/Kol/2017 (िनधा"रणवष"S / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Budhiya Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-2, Kolkata

For Appellant: Shri S. M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…reasons recorded before he proceeds to assess the income, which according to him, has escaped Assessment. In fact, non furnishing of reasons would make an Assessment Order bad as held by this Court in CIT v. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. [2012] 21 taxmann.com 53, 340 ITR 66. In fact, partial furnishing of reasons will also necessarily meet the same fate i.e. render the Assessment Order on re- opening notice bad. Therefore, on the aboveground itself, the question as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law as it is covered by the decision of this Court in Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd.’s case (supra)…