Claggett Bronchi Co. Ltd. v. CIT

177 ITR 409Supreme Court of India1989#3078 most cited

What is Claggett Bronchi Co. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Issuing a notice under section 148 after two years from the end of the relevant assessment year is prohibited by law and makes reassessment proceedings void.

38

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Claggett Bronchi Co. Ltd. v. CIT · section 148 · notice after two years · time barred assessment · limitation · prohibition by statute · void reassessment

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 143(l)(a)time barred assessmentsection 151(1)section 264reason to believeshare application moneysection 151section 149cross objectiondocuments seizedunexplained expenditureentry operator

Judgments citing Claggett Bronchi Co. Ltd. v. CIT

Smt. L Sudha Bala, L/R of Late Sri L.Narsa Reddy, Guntur vs. The DCIT, Special Range Guntur, Guntur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 261/VIZ/2012[1985-86]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Dec 2018AY 1985-86

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.260 & 261/Viz/2012 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Years :1984-85 & 1985-86 Respectively) L.Sudha Bala Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of L/R Of Late Sri L Narasa Reddy Income Tax Prop.Sri Venkateswara Agro Chemicals Special Range Industries Guntur 2-14-101, Syamala Nagar 2Nd Lane, Guntur [Pan : Acgpl2351P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

…in [1968] 67 ITR 11 (SC). In the cases of Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh vs. CIT E19591 35 ITR 1 (SC), Bankipur Club Ltd. vs. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 831 (SC), Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society vs. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 996 (5C), Claggett Brachi Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1989] 177 ITR 409 (SC), and Phool Chand Bajrang Lal vs. ITO [1993] 203 ITR 456 (SC), the Apex Court has expressed similar opinion. Thus, once it is clear that the AO was in possession of the information, then it need not be acted upon immediately, may be subsequently also. 5.4. So far so good. The reasons recorded by the AO for the impugned assessment years were…

Smt. L Sudha Bala, L/R of Late Sri L.Narsa Reddy, Guntur vs. The DCIT, Special Range Guntur, Guntur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 260/VIZ/2012[1984-85]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Dec 2018AY 1984-85

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.260 & 261/Viz/2012 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Years :1984-85 & 1985-86 Respectively) L.Sudha Bala Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of L/R Of Late Sri L Narasa Reddy Income Tax Prop.Sri Venkateswara Agro Chemicals Special Range Industries Guntur 2-14-101, Syamala Nagar 2Nd Lane, Guntur [Pan : Acgpl2351P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

…in [1968] 67 ITR 11 (SC). In the cases of Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh vs. CIT E19591 35 ITR 1 (SC), Bankipur Club Ltd. vs. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 831 (SC), Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society vs. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 996 (5C), Claggett Brachi Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1989] 177 ITR 409 (SC), and Phool Chand Bajrang Lal vs. ITO [1993] 203 ITR 456 (SC), the Apex Court has expressed similar opinion. Thus, once it is clear that the AO was in possession of the information, then it need not be acted upon immediately, may be subsequently also. 5.4. So far so good. The reasons recorded by the AO for the impugned assessment years were…

Chaparala Babu Rao, Rep. of S. Sailaja Naidu, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer (International Taxation), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 182/VIZ/2018[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Nov 2018AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.175/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) Chaparala Babu Rao Vs. Dy.Director Of Income Tax 7-17-1, Main Road (It&Tp) Kirlampudi Layout Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Adcpc4435G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.180-182/Viz/2018 (धििाारणिर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) Chaparala Babu Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep.Assessee Of (International Taxation) (I) Sri K.Vemlata Rao Visakhapatnam (Ii) Sri G.Hari Prasad (Iii) Smt.S.Sailaja Naidu D.No.10-50-19, 4Th Floor “Soudamani” Siripuram Visakhapatnam (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) राजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Suman Malik, Dr निर्ााररती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri C.V.S.Murthy, Ar सुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2018 28.11.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

For Appellant: Shri C.V.S.Murthy, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik, DR
Section 148Section 234ASection 234B

…the assessment year 2012-13 onwards as per the Explanation to the above sub-section. 8 I.T.A. Nos.175/Viz/2017 and I.T.A. Nos.180-182-Viz-2018 Chaparala Babu Rao, Visakhapatnam The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Claggett Bronchi Co. Ltd. v. CIT [19891 177 ITR 409 (para 9) had held as under:- “…..The issue of notice under section 148 of the Act to the agent after the expiry of two years from the end of the relevant assessment year is prohibition by the statute. The same ratio was followed in the following two cases (i) CIT v. S.G. Sambandam & Co., (2000) 242 ITR 708, 718 (Mad); (ii) Ingram Micro India Ltd…

Chaparala Babu Rao, Rep. Sri G. Hari Prasad, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer (International Taxation), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 181/VIZ/2018[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Nov 2018AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.175/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) Chaparala Babu Rao Vs. Dy.Director Of Income Tax 7-17-1, Main Road (It&Tp) Kirlampudi Layout Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Adcpc4435G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.180-182/Viz/2018 (धििाारणिर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) Chaparala Babu Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep.Assessee Of (International Taxation) (I) Sri K.Vemlata Rao Visakhapatnam (Ii) Sri G.Hari Prasad (Iii) Smt.S.Sailaja Naidu D.No.10-50-19, 4Th Floor “Soudamani” Siripuram Visakhapatnam (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) राजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Suman Malik, Dr निर्ााररती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri C.V.S.Murthy, Ar सुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2018 28.11.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

For Appellant: Shri C.V.S.Murthy, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik, DR
Section 148Section 234ASection 234B

…the assessment year 2012-13 onwards as per the Explanation to the above sub-section. 8 I.T.A. Nos.175/Viz/2017 and I.T.A. Nos.180-182-Viz-2018 Chaparala Babu Rao, Visakhapatnam The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Claggett Bronchi Co. Ltd. v. CIT [19891 177 ITR 409 (para 9) had held as under:- “…..The issue of notice under section 148 of the Act to the agent after the expiry of two years from the end of the relevant assessment year is prohibition by the statute. The same ratio was followed in the following two cases (i) CIT v. S.G. Sambandam & Co., (2000) 242 ITR 708, 718 (Mad); (ii) Ingram Micro India Ltd…

Chaparala Babu Rao, Rep. of K. Vemlata Rao, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer (International Taxation), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 180/VIZ/2018[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Nov 2018AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.175/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) Chaparala Babu Rao Vs. Dy.Director Of Income Tax 7-17-1, Main Road (It&Tp) Kirlampudi Layout Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Adcpc4435G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.180-182/Viz/2018 (धििाारणिर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) Chaparala Babu Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep.Assessee Of (International Taxation) (I) Sri K.Vemlata Rao Visakhapatnam (Ii) Sri G.Hari Prasad (Iii) Smt.S.Sailaja Naidu D.No.10-50-19, 4Th Floor “Soudamani” Siripuram Visakhapatnam (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) राजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Suman Malik, Dr निर्ााररती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri C.V.S.Murthy, Ar सुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2018 28.11.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

For Appellant: Shri C.V.S.Murthy, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik, DR
Section 148Section 234ASection 234B

…the assessment year 2012-13 onwards as per the Explanation to the above sub-section. 8 I.T.A. Nos.175/Viz/2017 and I.T.A. Nos.180-182-Viz-2018 Chaparala Babu Rao, Visakhapatnam The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Claggett Bronchi Co. Ltd. v. CIT [19891 177 ITR 409 (para 9) had held as under:- “…..The issue of notice under section 148 of the Act to the agent after the expiry of two years from the end of the relevant assessment year is prohibition by the statute. The same ratio was followed in the following two cases (i) CIT v. S.G. Sambandam & Co., (2000) 242 ITR 708, 718 (Mad); (ii) Ingram Micro India Ltd…

ITO 6(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Jaydeep Profiles P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3236/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, बनाम/ Bhavan, M.K.Road, Darukhana, Reay Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai 400 086 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B Assessment Year: 2009-10 Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar बनाम/ Darukhana, Reay Road, Bhavan, M.K.Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 086 Mumbai 400 020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B 2 & 2698/Mum/2016

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148

…h in our view, entitle the Assessing Officer to have prima facie reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Claggett Brachi 41 & 2698/Mum/2016 Jaydeep Profiles P.Ltd Company Ltd. vs CIT 177 ITR 409 (Supreme Court), Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Anusandhan Investment Ltd. vs DCIT 287 ITR 482 and Piaggio Vhicles Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT 290 ITR 377 (Bom.) held that in a case of reopening after four years subsequent to scrutiny assessment, contradiction was recovered by between tax audit report and return of income, it was a case of omissions an…

Jaydeep Profiles Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO WD 6 (3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2698/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, बनाम/ Bhavan, M.K.Road, Darukhana, Reay Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai 400 086 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B Assessment Year: 2009-10 Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar बनाम/ Darukhana, Reay Road, Bhavan, M.K.Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 086 Mumbai 400 020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B 2 & 2698/Mum/2016

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148

…h in our view, entitle the Assessing Officer to have prima facie reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Claggett Brachi 41 & 2698/Mum/2016 Jaydeep Profiles P.Ltd Company Ltd. vs CIT 177 ITR 409 (Supreme Court), Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Anusandhan Investment Ltd. vs DCIT 287 ITR 482 and Piaggio Vhicles Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT 290 ITR 377 (Bom.) held that in a case of reopening after four years subsequent to scrutiny assessment, contradiction was recovered by between tax audit report and return of income, it was a case of omissions an…

DCIT 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. National Bank of Agriculture An Rural Development, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3649/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhdcit 3(2)(2) National Bank Of Agriculture & Room No. 674, 6Th Floor, Rural Development, C-24, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400020. Bandra, Mumbai-400051. Pan: Aaact4020G Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Shri Abhijit Patankar (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 254(1)

…culture and Rural Development (i) Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Larsen & Toubro Ltd. vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors in Civil Appeal No. 5390 of 2007, (ii) CIT vs. P.V.S. Beedies (P.) Ltd. [1999] 103 Taxman 294 (SC), (iii) Claggett Brachi Co.Ltd. vs. CIT [1989] 177 ITR 409 (SC). (iv) Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. vs. ITO, 236 ITR 34, Kalyanji Mavji & Co. V.CIT (1976) 102 ITR 287 (SC), (v) Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of sales Tax Vs Ambway Machinery (226 CTR 659). 5. On the other hand, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that the assessee while filing return of income has disclosed all the material facts fully…

Idhasoft Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - 15(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5139/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Dcit-15(2)(1), 3, Narayan Building, Room No.357, 3Rd Floor बनाम/ 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400014 M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aabci6090G Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit-15(2)(1), M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Room No.357, 3Rd Floor 3, Narayan Building, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400014 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabci6090G

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

…information was received by the Assessing Officer, which in our view, entitle the Assessing Officer to have prima facie to reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. The ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court In Claggett Brachi Company Ltd. vs CIT 177 ITR 409 (Supreme 42 5139 & 5338/Mum/2016 Idhasoft Ltd. Court), Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Anusandhan Investment Ltd. vs DCIT 287 ITR 482 and Piaggio Vhicles Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT 290 ITR 377 (Bom.) held that in a case of reopening after four years subsequent to scrutiny assessment, contradiction was recovered by between tax audit report and return of i…

DCIT 15(1)(1), Mumbai vs. A.J. Buildcon P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be partly allowed

ITA 6204/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6204/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) The Dy. Cit 15(1)(1), बिधम/ M/S. A. J. Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai Room No. 470, 4Th 514, Marathon Max, Opp, Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Nirmal Life Style, Lbs Maharshi Karve Road, Road, Mulund (W), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400080. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagca6548Q (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri M. V. Rajguru (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Dr. P. Daniel सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01.06.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29.06.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 22.07.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -24, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009- 10. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. "On The Farts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Taw, The Ld. C1T(A) Erred Directing The Assessing Officer To Delete The Entire Disallowance Of Rs.67,99Hl3Q/-Mad Account Of Alleged Bogus Purchases, Without Appreciating The Fact That The Said Seller Pa Were Found To Be Hawala Operators/ Bogus Billers?, As Per Findings Given By (He Sales A.Y.2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Dr. P. DanielFor Respondent: Shri M. V. Rajguru (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 40A

…ceived by the A.O. can entitle him to issue notice u/s.148, if on the basis of such information he has prima facie reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. So much so that it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Claggett Brachi Co. Ld, vs CIT 177 ITR 409 (SC) that an information obtained during assessment proceedings of a subsequent year can also validate the proceedings initiated u/s.147 for earlier year. Similarly, Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Anusandhan Investments Ltd. vs. M.R. Singh, DCJT, 287 ITR 482 held that a notice issued u/s.148 based on assessment of subsequent assessment…

R.Smitha Sharma Represented by Dr.P.Venugopal, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, (International Taxation), Visakhapatanam

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 74/VIZ/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam06 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.69/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Pratima Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.70/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Gautam Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.71/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Ujvala Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 147Section 148Section 234A

…ection (3) of Section 149 of the Act. The amended period of six years is applicable only from the assessment year 2012-13 onwards as per the Explanation to the above sub-section. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Claggett Bronchi Co. Ltd. v. CIT [19891 177 ITR 409 (para 9) had held as under:- “…..The issue of notice under section 148 of the Act to the agent after the expiry of two years from the end of the relevant assessment year is prohibition by the statute. The same ratio was followed in the following two cases (i) CIT v. S.G. Sambandam& Co., (2000) 242 ITR 708, 718 (Mad); (ii) Ingram Micro India Ltd.…

R.Mani Kumar Represented by Dr.P.Venugopal, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, (International Taxation), Visakhapatnam

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 73/VIZ/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam06 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.69/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Pratima Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.70/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Gautam Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.71/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Ujvala Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 147Section 148Section 234A

…ection (3) of Section 149 of the Act. The amended period of six years is applicable only from the assessment year 2012-13 onwards as per the Explanation to the above sub-section. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Claggett Bronchi Co. Ltd. v. CIT [19891 177 ITR 409 (para 9) had held as under:- “…..The issue of notice under section 148 of the Act to the agent after the expiry of two years from the end of the relevant assessment year is prohibition by the statute. The same ratio was followed in the following two cases (i) CIT v. S.G. Sambandam& Co., (2000) 242 ITR 708, 718 (Mad); (ii) Ingram Micro India Ltd.…

Lalitha D.V.Rao Represented by Dr.P.Venugopal, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, (International Taxation), Visakhapatnam

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 72/VIZ/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam06 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.69/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Pratima Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.70/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Gautam Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.71/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Ujvala Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 147Section 148Section 234A

…ection (3) of Section 149 of the Act. The amended period of six years is applicable only from the assessment year 2012-13 onwards as per the Explanation to the above sub-section. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Claggett Bronchi Co. Ltd. v. CIT [19891 177 ITR 409 (para 9) had held as under:- “…..The issue of notice under section 148 of the Act to the agent after the expiry of two years from the end of the relevant assessment year is prohibition by the statute. The same ratio was followed in the following two cases (i) CIT v. S.G. Sambandam& Co., (2000) 242 ITR 708, 718 (Mad); (ii) Ingram Micro India Ltd.…

V.Ujavala Rao Represented by Dr.P.Venugopal, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, (International Taxation), Visakhapatnam

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 71/VIZ/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam06 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.69/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Pratima Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.70/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Gautam Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.71/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Ujvala Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 147Section 148Section 234A

…ection (3) of Section 149 of the Act. The amended period of six years is applicable only from the assessment year 2012-13 onwards as per the Explanation to the above sub-section. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Claggett Bronchi Co. Ltd. v. CIT [19891 177 ITR 409 (para 9) had held as under:- “…..The issue of notice under section 148 of the Act to the agent after the expiry of two years from the end of the relevant assessment year is prohibition by the statute. The same ratio was followed in the following two cases (i) CIT v. S.G. Sambandam& Co., (2000) 242 ITR 708, 718 (Mad); (ii) Ingram Micro India Ltd.…

V.Gautam Rao Represented by Dr.P.Venugopal, Visakhpatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, (International Taxation), Visakhapatnam

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 70/VIZ/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam06 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.69/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Pratima Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.70/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Gautam Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.71/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Ujvala Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 147Section 148Section 234A

…ection (3) of Section 149 of the Act. The amended period of six years is applicable only from the assessment year 2012-13 onwards as per the Explanation to the above sub-section. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Claggett Bronchi Co. Ltd. v. CIT [19891 177 ITR 409 (para 9) had held as under:- “…..The issue of notice under section 148 of the Act to the agent after the expiry of two years from the end of the relevant assessment year is prohibition by the statute. The same ratio was followed in the following two cases (i) CIT v. S.G. Sambandam& Co., (2000) 242 ITR 708, 718 (Mad); (ii) Ingram Micro India Ltd.…

V.Pratima Rao, Represented by Dr. P.Venugopal, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, (International Taxation), Visakhapatnam

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 69/VIZ/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam06 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.69/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Pratima Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.70/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Gautam Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.71/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Ujvala Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 147Section 148Section 234A

…ection (3) of Section 149 of the Act. The amended period of six years is applicable only from the assessment year 2012-13 onwards as per the Explanation to the above sub-section. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Claggett Bronchi Co. Ltd. v. CIT [19891 177 ITR 409 (para 9) had held as under:- “…..The issue of notice under section 148 of the Act to the agent after the expiry of two years from the end of the relevant assessment year is prohibition by the statute. The same ratio was followed in the following two cases (i) CIT v. S.G. Sambandam& Co., (2000) 242 ITR 708, 718 (Mad); (ii) Ingram Micro India Ltd.…

Vinod K.Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 1736/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: S/s. Saboo & Deepak S. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

…received by the AO. can entitle him to issue notice u/s.148, if on the basis of such information he has prima facie reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. So much so that it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Claggett Brachi Co.Ld. vs CIT 177 ITR 409 (SC) that an information obtained during assessment proceedings of a subsequent year can also validate the proceedings initiated u/s.147 for earlier year. Similarly, Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Anusandhan Investments Ltd. vs. M.R .. Singh, DCIT, Shri Vinod K. Shah 287 ITR 482 held that a notice issued u/s.148 based on assessment of s…

Vinod K Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 1264/MUM/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: S/s. Saboo & Deepak S. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

…received by the AO. can entitle him to issue notice u/s.148, if on the basis of such information he has prima facie reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. So much so that it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Claggett Brachi Co.Ld. vs CIT 177 ITR 409 (SC) that an information obtained during assessment proceedings of a subsequent year can also validate the proceedings initiated u/s.147 for earlier year. Similarly, Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Anusandhan Investments Ltd. vs. M.R .. Singh, DCIT, Shri Vinod K. Shah 287 ITR 482 held that a notice issued u/s.148 based on assessment of s…