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.

The Income Tax Officer, Ward-25(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Pallavi Vijen Jhaveri, Mumbai

ITA 5998/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Amit Mittal, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

…Ld. CIT(A), therefore assessment as framed by the AO under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act is invalid and void ab initio. In defence of his arguments, the Ld. A.R. relied on a series of decisions namely; (1) CIT vs. Videsh Sanchar Ltd. (2012) 340 ITR 66 (Bom.) (2) Pr. CIT vs. V. Ramaiah (2019) 103 taxmann.com 202 (SC) (3) ITO vs. Rishi Godani (2018) 97 taxmann.com 135 (Agra-Trib.) (4) Rina S. Mehta vs. DCIT in ITA No.3120/M/2015 4 CO No.225/M/2018 M/s. Pallavi Vijen Jhaveri 7. The Ld. A.R. prayed before the Bench that even Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. V. Ramaiah has dismissed…

Vilas B. Rukari (HUF), Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1), Pune

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

ITA 2197/PUN/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Nov 2019AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang Boman Irani
Section 147Section 148Section 2

…Petron Pvt. Ltd. (supra).” 13. 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…

Assistant Commissiomner of Income Tax, Bilaspur vs. M/S Barbarik Projects Limited, Surajpur (Cg)

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 80/RPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury,Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.80/Rpr/2018 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: ShriS.R. RaoFor Respondent: ShriR.K. Singh
Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

…on 22.02.2018. He pointed to the copy of aforesaid letter which is placed at pages 41 to 51 of Paper Book. The Ld. AR for the assessee therefore, relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (2012) 340 ITR 66 (Bom) submitted that when the reasons recorded for reopening were not furnished to the assessee by the Assessing Officer despite the request made by assessee, re-assessment order cannot be upheld. He submitted that similar proposition has been laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Fomento Resorts & Hotels Ltd. (2016) (1…

Raina Engineers, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Panvel Cir, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2009-10 and 2011-12 are allowed and appeal for the assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed

ITA 3640/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-2010 M/S Raina Engineers, The Deputy Commissioner Of A-8, Shri Ram Industrial Estate, Income Tax, G.D. Ambedkar Road, 3Rd Floor, Trifed Tower, Wadala (W), Vs. Opp. Khanda Colony, Panvel, Mumbai - 400031 Navi Mumbai Pan: Aabfr6379J Assessment Year: 2010-2011 M/S Raina Engineers, The Asst. Commissioner Of A-8, Shri Ram Industrial Estate, Income Tax, G.D. Ambedkar Road, Panvel Circle, Wadala (West), Vs. Panvel Mumbai - 400031 Pan: Aabfr6379J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-2011 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Raina Engineers, Tax, Panvel Circle, 604, Sunder Tower, Income Tax Office, 3Rd Floor, Off. T.J. Road, Trifed Tower, Sector- 17, Vs. Opp. Swan Mills, Sewari, Opp: Khanda Colony, New Panvel, Mumbai Dist: Raigad. Pan: Aabfr6379J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-2012 M/S Raina Engineers, The Deputy Commissioner Of A-8, Shri Ram Industrial Estate, Income Tax, G.D. Ambedkar Road, 3Rd Floor, Trifed Tower, Wadala (W), Vs. Opp. Khanda Colony, Panvel, Mumbai - 400031 Navi Mumbai Pan: Aabfr6379J Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Raina Engineers, Tax, Panvel Circle, A-8, C-6, Sriram Industrial Income Tax Office, 3Rd Floor, Estate, G.D. Ambedkar Road, Trifed Tower, Sector- 17, Vs. Wadala (W), Opp: Khanda Colony, New Panvel, Mumbai - 400031 Dist: Raigad Pan: Aabfr6379J

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta & Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari (DR)
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…lied the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment u/s 147 of the Act, the reassessment proceedings is bad in law and is liable to be quashed in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. 340 ITR 66 and the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. IDBI Ltd. 2016 (76 taxman.com 227). The Ld. counsel invited our attention to the reply dated 16.04.2015 filed by the assessee to the notice issue by the AO u/s 148 of the Act, in which the assessee has specifically requested the AO to supply the copy of reasons recorded for r…

M/S. Gujarat Glass P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT RG. 6(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 7188/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2019AY 2000-2001

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: S/Shri Yogesh A TharFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar, DR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…m, reassessment framed without the providing reasons is bad in law and reassessment is to be quashed. For this, the learned Counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited (2012) 340 ITR 66 (Bom), wherein the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held that where the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment not furnished till the completion of 6 | P a g e ITAs No.7188 & 7666/Mum/2004 assessment, the reassessment order cannot be upheld. For this, he relied para 2 of the order, which read as under: - “2. The finding of fact recorded by the…

Rina S. Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3120/MUM/2015[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2019AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 1995-96

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel, (Spl. Counsel for Deptt.)
Section 144Section 147Section 234ASection 234B

…nd on this count itself the notice under section 148 of the Act and consequent assessment order may be quashed. The Ld. A.R. relied on a series of 6 Rina S. Mehta decisions namely CIT vs. IDBI Ltd. (76 Taxmann.com 227)(Bom), CIT vs. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (340 ITR 66)(Bom), Pr. CIT vs. Jagat Talkies Distributors (398 ITR 13)(Del) and PCIT V Ramaiah(2019)103taxmann.com202(SC). 11. The Ld. D.R., on the other hand, strongly opposed the arguments of the Ld. A.R. by submitting that assessee has not filed any return of income in response to notice issued under section 148 and the copy of reasons recorded were not p…

Punsumi India Ltd, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, all appeals of assessee for the assessment years

ITA 1204/JPR/2018[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jul 2019AY 1995-96

Bench: The Ld.

For Appellant: Shri Dileep Shivpuri (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri P.P. Meena (ACIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(2)

…on, he has relied upon the following decisions:- • Pr. CIT vs. V. Ramiah 103 taxmann.com 201( Kar.) which has upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case 262 taxman 16. • Manjula Athur vs. ITO 91 taxmann.com 438 (Madras). • CIT vs. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. 340 ITR 66 (Bombay). Punsumi India Ltd. vs. DCIT Thus, the ld. AR has submitted that the impugned order as well as the reassessment order passed by the AO is not valid without supply the reasons to the assessee. 4. The ld. DR has submitted that these are set aside proceedings before the AO and there was no direction of the Tribunal to supply the reasons…

Punsumi India Ltd, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, all appeals of assessee for the assessment years

ITA 1203/JPR/2018[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jul 2019AY 1994-95

Bench: The Ld.

For Appellant: Shri Dileep Shivpuri (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri P.P. Meena (ACIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(2)

…on, he has relied upon the following decisions:- • Pr. CIT vs. V. Ramiah 103 taxmann.com 201( Kar.) which has upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case 262 taxman 16. • Manjula Athur vs. ITO 91 taxmann.com 438 (Madras). • CIT vs. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. 340 ITR 66 (Bombay). Punsumi India Ltd. vs. DCIT Thus, the ld. AR has submitted that the impugned order as well as the reassessment order passed by the AO is not valid without supply the reasons to the assessee. 4. The ld. DR has submitted that these are set aside proceedings before the AO and there was no direction of the Tribunal to supply the reasons…

Punsumi India Ltd, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, all appeals of assessee for the assessment years

ITA 1202/JPR/2018[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jul 2019AY 1993-94

Bench: The Ld.

For Appellant: Shri Dileep Shivpuri (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri P.P. Meena (ACIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(2)

…on, he has relied upon the following decisions:- • Pr. CIT vs. V. Ramiah 103 taxmann.com 201( Kar.) which has upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case 262 taxman 16. • Manjula Athur vs. ITO 91 taxmann.com 438 (Madras). • CIT vs. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. 340 ITR 66 (Bombay). Punsumi India Ltd. vs. DCIT Thus, the ld. AR has submitted that the impugned order as well as the reassessment order passed by the AO is not valid without supply the reasons to the assessee. 4. The ld. DR has submitted that these are set aside proceedings before the AO and there was no direction of the Tribunal to supply the reasons…

ITO 19(2)(5), Mumbai vs. Prakashmal G. Arnaiya, Mumbai

In the result, both, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4638/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 4622/Mum/2016 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2006-07) The Income Tax Officer, Shri Ashok Kumar G. Ward-15(2)(2), 2Nd Floor, Arnaiya, 32/34, 2 Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Keshav Bhavan, 1St Vs. Mumbai-400 007 Carpenter Street, Mumbai-400 004 .. (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Adfpa0906R Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 4635/Mum/2016 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2006-07) Shri Ashok Kumar G. Arnaiya, The Income Tax Officer, 32/34, 2Nd Floor, Keshav Ward-15(2)(2), 2Nd Floor, Vs. Bhavan, 1St Carpenter Street, Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400 004 Mumbai-400 007 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Adfpa0906R Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 4636/Mum/2016 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2006-07) Shri Prakashmal G. Arnaiya The Income Tax Officer, 32/34, 2Nd Floor, Keshav Ward-19(2)(5), Mumbai Vs. Bhavan, 1St Carpenter Street, Mumbai-400 004 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aadpj0419M

For Appellant: Shri Satischandra Rajore, DRFor Respondent: Shri Devendra H. Jain, AR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ed by the AO to the assessee, the reassessment framed was declared as void and quashed. 6 4622,4635,4636, 4638/mum/2016 5. We find that this issue is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd [2012] 340 ITR 66 (Bombay), wherein it is held that where reasons recorded for reopening of assessment, though repeatedly asked by assessee, were furnished only after completion of assessment, reassessment order could not be upheld. Hon’ble High Court held as under: - “2. The finding of fact recorded by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is that in the present case…

Prakashmal G. Arnaiya, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, both, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4636/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 4622/Mum/2016 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2006-07) The Income Tax Officer, Shri Ashok Kumar G. Ward-15(2)(2), 2Nd Floor, Arnaiya, 32/34, 2 Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Keshav Bhavan, 1St Vs. Mumbai-400 007 Carpenter Street, Mumbai-400 004 .. (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Adfpa0906R Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 4635/Mum/2016 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2006-07) Shri Ashok Kumar G. Arnaiya, The Income Tax Officer, 32/34, 2Nd Floor, Keshav Ward-15(2)(2), 2Nd Floor, Vs. Bhavan, 1St Carpenter Street, Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400 004 Mumbai-400 007 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Adfpa0906R Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 4636/Mum/2016 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2006-07) Shri Prakashmal G. Arnaiya The Income Tax Officer, 32/34, 2Nd Floor, Keshav Ward-19(2)(5), Mumbai Vs. Bhavan, 1St Carpenter Street, Mumbai-400 004 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aadpj0419M

For Appellant: Shri Satischandra Rajore, DRFor Respondent: Shri Devendra H. Jain, AR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ed by the AO to the assessee, the reassessment framed was declared as void and quashed. 6 4622,4635,4636, 4638/mum/2016 5. We find that this issue is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd [2012] 340 ITR 66 (Bombay), wherein it is held that where reasons recorded for reopening of assessment, though repeatedly asked by assessee, were furnished only after completion of assessment, reassessment order could not be upheld. Hon’ble High Court held as under: - “2. The finding of fact recorded by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is that in the present case…

Ashok Kumar G. Arnaiya, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4635/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 4622/Mum/2016 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2006-07) The Income Tax Officer, Shri Ashok Kumar G. Ward-15(2)(2), 2Nd Floor, Arnaiya, 32/34, 2 Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Keshav Bhavan, 1St Vs. Mumbai-400 007 Carpenter Street, Mumbai-400 004 .. (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Adfpa0906R Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 4635/Mum/2016 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2006-07) Shri Ashok Kumar G. Arnaiya, The Income Tax Officer, 32/34, 2Nd Floor, Keshav Ward-15(2)(2), 2Nd Floor, Vs. Bhavan, 1St Carpenter Street, Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400 004 Mumbai-400 007 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Adfpa0906R Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 4636/Mum/2016 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2006-07) Shri Prakashmal G. Arnaiya The Income Tax Officer, 32/34, 2Nd Floor, Keshav Ward-19(2)(5), Mumbai Vs. Bhavan, 1St Carpenter Street, Mumbai-400 004 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aadpj0419M

For Appellant: Shri Satischandra Rajore, DRFor Respondent: Shri Devendra H. Jain, AR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ed by the AO to the assessee, the reassessment framed was declared as void and quashed. 6 4622,4635,4636, 4638/mum/2016 5. We find that this issue is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd [2012] 340 ITR 66 (Bombay), wherein it is held that where reasons recorded for reopening of assessment, though repeatedly asked by assessee, were furnished only after completion of assessment, reassessment order could not be upheld. Hon’ble High Court held as under: - “2. The finding of fact recorded by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is that in the present case…

ITO 19(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Ashok Kumar G. Arnaiya, Mumbai

In the result, both, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4622/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 4622/Mum/2016 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2006-07) The Income Tax Officer, Shri Ashok Kumar G. Ward-15(2)(2), 2Nd Floor, Arnaiya, 32/34, 2 Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Keshav Bhavan, 1St Vs. Mumbai-400 007 Carpenter Street, Mumbai-400 004 .. (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Adfpa0906R Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 4635/Mum/2016 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2006-07) Shri Ashok Kumar G. Arnaiya, The Income Tax Officer, 32/34, 2Nd Floor, Keshav Ward-15(2)(2), 2Nd Floor, Vs. Bhavan, 1St Carpenter Street, Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400 004 Mumbai-400 007 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Adfpa0906R Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 4636/Mum/2016 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2006-07) Shri Prakashmal G. Arnaiya The Income Tax Officer, 32/34, 2Nd Floor, Keshav Ward-19(2)(5), Mumbai Vs. Bhavan, 1St Carpenter Street, Mumbai-400 004 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aadpj0419M

For Appellant: Shri Satischandra Rajore, DRFor Respondent: Shri Devendra H. Jain, AR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ed by the AO to the assessee, the reassessment framed was declared as void and quashed. 6 4622,4635,4636, 4638/mum/2016 5. We find that this issue is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd [2012] 340 ITR 66 (Bombay), wherein it is held that where reasons recorded for reopening of assessment, though repeatedly asked by assessee, were furnished only after completion of assessment, reassessment order could not be upheld. Hon’ble High Court held as under: - “2. The finding of fact recorded by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is that in the present case…

ITO 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Aaa Technologies P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3455/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Abdul Hakeem M
Section 143(3)Section 148

…reasons the Assessing Officer did not provide any reasons and therefore, the assessment made u/s. 148 of the Act is bad in law. Reliance is placed on the following decisions. a. PCIT v. V. Ramaiah [103 taxmann.com 202 (SC)] b. CIT v. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd [340 ITR 66 (BOM)] C.O. No. 280/MUM/2018 M/s. AAA Technologies Pvt. Ltd., c. CIT v. Trend Electronics [379 ITR 456 (Bom.)] d. CIT v. IDBI Ltd. [(2016) 76 taxmann.com 227 (Bom.)] 4. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further referring to the order of the Ld.CIT(A) submits that, the Ld. CIT(A) did not dispute the fact that the Assessing Officer never provided to the…

ITO 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Aaa Technologies P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3454/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Abdul Hakeem M
Section 143(3)Section 148

…reasons the Assessing Officer did not provide any reasons and therefore, the assessment made u/s. 148 of the Act is bad in law. Reliance is placed on the following decisions. a. PCIT v. V. Ramaiah [103 taxmann.com 202 (SC)] b. CIT v. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd [340 ITR 66 (BOM)] C.O. No. 280/MUM/2018 M/s. AAA Technologies Pvt. Ltd., c. CIT v. Trend Electronics [379 ITR 456 (Bom.)] d. CIT v. IDBI Ltd. [(2016) 76 taxmann.com 227 (Bom.)] 4. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further referring to the order of the Ld.CIT(A) submits that, the Ld. CIT(A) did not dispute the fact that the Assessing Officer never provided to the…

Abhijit Deshpande, Pandit Automotive Private Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 4, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 492/PUN/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

…tron Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 13. 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 7 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…

Sri Udit Kumar Dugar, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 36(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 799/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…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.Gangabisan Murlidhar Maniyar, Ahmednagar vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Ahmednagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2340/PUN/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi.

For Appellant: Shri S.N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Verma
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234BSection 40A(2)(b)

…ubmitted that furnishing the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment is mandatory condition and it is not an empty formality. He thereafter relying on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. [2012] 340 ITR 66 (Bom) submitted that the Hon’ble High Court has held that failure to furnish the recorded reasons for issue of reopening notices to the assessee before completion of the assessment proceedings would make the reassessment order passed in pursuance of such a notice bad in law. He therefore submitted that the reassessment order passed by the AO 4…

M/S. Gera Developments Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeal of assessee in assessment year 2010-11 is allowed and appeal of assessee in assessment year 2011-12 is partly allowed

ITA 1808/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1807/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Gera Developments Pvt. Ltd., 200, Gera Plaza, Boat Club Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411001 …. Pan: Aaacg6703F Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1(2), Pune

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 80I

…essment proceedings, were totally incorrect. In this regard, reliance was placed on series of decisions ITA Nos.1807 & 1808/PUN/2016 5 M/s. Gera Developments P Ltd. with lead order by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (2012) 340 ITR 66 (Bom), where the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment have not been furnished to the assessee till completion of assessment, re-assessment order could not be upheld. The assessee also filed comments to the letter of Assessing Officer addressed to CIT(A) dated 11.02.2016 vide his letter dated 10.03.2016 and stressed that the statements in…

M/S. Gera Developments Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeal of assessee in assessment year 2010-11 is allowed and appeal of assessee in assessment year 2011-12 is partly allowed

ITA 1807/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Nov 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1807/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Gera Developments Pvt. Ltd., 200, Gera Plaza, Boat Club Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411001 …. Pan: Aaacg6703F Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1(2), Pune

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 80I

…essment proceedings, were totally incorrect. In this regard, reliance was placed on series of decisions ITA Nos.1807 & 1808/PUN/2016 5 M/s. Gera Developments P Ltd. with lead order by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (2012) 340 ITR 66 (Bom), where the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment have not been furnished to the assessee till completion of assessment, re-assessment order could not be upheld. The assessee also filed comments to the letter of Assessing Officer addressed to CIT(A) dated 11.02.2016 vide his letter dated 10.03.2016 and stressed that the statements in…