Durga Prashad Goyal v. ITO

98 ITD 227Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2006#10822 most cited

What is Durga Prashad Goyal v. ITO authority for?

Information alone does not constitute "reason to believe" for reopening an assessment unless it is investigated and leads to independent reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer must apply their mind to the material before issuing a reassessment notice.

10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Durga Prashad Goyal v. ITO · 98 ITD 227 · reasons to believe · reassessment notice · application of mind · independent reasons · investigation · AO · section 147 · section 148

Sections most often in play

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151A

Issues it is cited on

undisclosed foreign income and assetssection 149(1)(c)section 39section 5(2)substantive assessmentprice riggingnon application of mindsection 149(1)kelvinatorbusiness connectionbogus long term capital gainlive link

Judgments citing Durga Prashad Goyal v. ITO

Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur vs. Rahul Kathuria, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 152/RPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur26 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.151 & 152/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 The Income Tax Officer/Income Tax Officer-3(1) Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Jindal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 148

…does not constitute "reason to believe" unless such information is subjected to investigation and on the basis thereof independent reasons are recorded by the AO. The appellant has cited several case laws in his support i.e. Durga Prashad Goyal vs. ITO [2006] 98 ITD 227 (ASK.) (SB), Adani Infrastructure & Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (2019) 101 taxmann.com 256 (Gujarat)", ACIT vs. Dharia Construction Company (2010) 328 ITR 515 (SC) and Sesa Sterlite Ltd. vs. ACIT (2019) 417 ITR 334 (Born. HC). 5.5.12. The appellant has assailed the assessment order on technicalities of non-adherence to provisions of section 151A…

Income Tax Officer, Raipur vs. Rahul Kathuria, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 151/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.151 & 152/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 The Income Tax Officer/Income Tax Officer-3(1) Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Jindal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 148

…does not constitute "reason to believe" unless such information is subjected to investigation and on the basis thereof independent reasons are recorded by the AO. The appellant has cited several case laws in his support i.e. Durga Prashad Goyal vs. ITO [2006] 98 ITD 227 (ASK.) (SB), Adani Infrastructure & Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (2019) 101 taxmann.com 256 (Gujarat)", ACIT vs. Dharia Construction Company (2010) 328 ITR 515 (SC) and Sesa Sterlite Ltd. vs. ACIT (2019) 417 ITR 334 (Born. HC). 5.5.12. The appellant has assailed the assessment order on technicalities of non-adherence to provisions of section 151A…

Nilima Kothari, Indore vs. The Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Asstt. Centre, Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

ITA 259/IND/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manish Boradsmt. Neelima Kothari, Income Tax Officer, 601, N.R.K. Villas, Delhi Vs. 22/2 Manoramaganj, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adnpk7832J Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.09.2024

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

…there was escapement of income from assessment. Reason must have a link with the formation of the belief. iii)Pr. CIT vs. G. Pharma (I) Ltd (2017) 384 ITR 147 (Del.) iv)CIT vs. Insecticides (I) Ltd (2013) 357 ITR 300 (Del.) v)Durga Prasad Goyal Vs. ITO (2006) 98 ITD 227 (Asr)(SB), vi) ACIT vs. Dhariya Construction Co. (2010) 328 ITR 515 (SC) vii) Pr. CIT vs. Laxman Industrial Resources (2017) 397 ITR 106 (Del) HELD “Without forming a prima facie opinion, on the basis of such material, it was not possible for him to have simply concluded that it was evident that the assessee company has introduced its own unaccou…

The Dy CIT (It)-Circle-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Manish Vijay Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee for both the years are dismissed

ITA 494/MUM/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, DR
Section 148

…& Urvi Manish Mehta. 4. The appellant was never provided with the source and details of information AO was relying on apart from the Base Note under the guise of confidential information which he has referred in his order/Remand report. -Durgo Prashad Goyal 98 ITD 227 (Asr) (SB) that "any general information contained in letter is not relevant material". -Secondly if any document or material is relied by the AO for reopening the assessment the same should be provided to the assessee so as to enable the assessee to meet its case. Kishinchand Chellaram v CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC). -Tata Capital Financial Serv…

The Dy CIT (It)-Circle-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Manish Vijay Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee for both the years are dismissed

ITA 493/MUM/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, DR
Section 148

…& Urvi Manish Mehta. 4. The appellant was never provided with the source and details of information AO was relying on apart from the Base Note under the guise of confidential information which he has referred in his order/Remand report. -Durgo Prashad Goyal 98 ITD 227 (Asr) (SB) that "any general information contained in letter is not relevant material". -Secondly if any document or material is relied by the AO for reopening the assessment the same should be provided to the assessee so as to enable the assessee to meet its case. Kishinchand Chellaram v CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC). -Tata Capital Financial Serv…

The Dy CIT (It)-Circle-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Urvi Manish Mehra, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee for both the years are dismissed

ITA 492/MUM/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, DR
Section 148

…& Urvi Manish Mehta. 4. The appellant was never provided with the source and details of information AO was relying on apart from the Base Note under the guise of confidential information which he has referred in his order/Remand report. -Durgo Prashad Goyal 98 ITD 227 (Asr) (SB) that "any general information contained in letter is not relevant material". -Secondly if any document or material is relied by the AO for reopening the assessment the same should be provided to the assessee so as to enable the assessee to meet its case. Kishinchand Chellaram v CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC). -Tata Capital Financial Serv…

The Dy CIT (It)-Circle-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Urvi Manish Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee for both the years are dismissed

ITA 491/MUM/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, DR
Section 148

…& Urvi Manish Mehta. 4. The appellant was never provided with the source and details of information AO was relying on apart from the Base Note under the guise of confidential information which he has referred in his order/Remand report. -Durgo Prashad Goyal 98 ITD 227 (Asr) (SB) that "any general information contained in letter is not relevant material". -Secondly if any document or material is relied by the AO for reopening the assessment the same should be provided to the assessee so as to enable the assessee to meet its case. Kishinchand Chellaram v CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC). -Tata Capital Financial Serv…

DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S. Gail (India) Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal filed by the ld AO on the limited issue that order passed by the ld AO is barred by limitation. Ground No. 1 is dismissed

ITA 6079/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit(Ltu), Vs. M/S. Gail (India) Ltd, Circle-1, 16, Bhikaji Cama Place, Nbcc Plaza Pusp Vihar, Rk Puram, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 263

…d, 171 Taxman 379 (Del) 78. Wei Intertrade (P) Ltd, 308 ITR 22 (Del) 79. J P Bajpai HUF, 269 ITR 40 document1 80. JSRS Udyog Ltd, 313 ITR 321 (Del) 81. DT&TDS, 232 CTR 260 (Del) 82. Jashan Textile Mills (P) Limited. 284 ITR 542 (Bom) 83. Durga Prashad Goyal. 98 ITD 227 (Asr.) (SB)- 4.8 In view of the Plethora of case laws relied upon by the appellant and the findings of the undersigned that there was no non-disclosure of any material facts by the appellant, Ground no. 1 of the appeal is allowed. Since, ground no. 1 of the appeal has been allowed, the assessment made is annulled and consequently the remaining gro…

ACIT 12(2)(2), Mumbai vs. I & E Trade Consultants P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 798/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.798/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Acit -12(2)(2), M/S I&E Trade बनाम/ Room No. 363, Consultants Pvt. Ltd., V. 3 Rd Floor,, 10 Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Shree Puri Tower, M.K. Road, Soniwadi Shimpoli Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Borivali (West), Mumbai – 400092. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aabct9239N .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Nikita AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Saurabhkumar Rai,DR
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…& 8 C.O. No. 140/Mum/2016 1) United Electrical Company v. CIT (2002) 258 ITR 317 (Del.) 2) Sarthak Securities Company Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (2010) 329 ITR110 (De!) 3) Assam Tea Company v. ITO (2005) 92 ITD 85 (Asr) (SB) . 4) Durga Prashad Goyal v. ITO (2006) 98 ITD 227 (Asr) (SB) 5) Smt. Kusumlata Bansal v. DClT (2008) 10 DTR (Ahd.)(Trib.)82 6) Virendra Kumar Agrawal v. ITO (2011) 132 ITD 140 (Mum) 7) ITO vs. Permanand 25 SOT 11 ITAT, Jodhpur The assessee also submitted written submissions as under:- “”We submit herewith a file containing all our submissions filed during course of the original assessment pr…

Kamlesh S. Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO 21(2)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1475/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: The Ld. Assessing Officer & The Accounts Of The Assessee Are Audited One, Therefore, The Addition Is Purely On The Basis Guess Work. Our Attention Was Invited To Exhibit A (Pages 1 & 2) & Exhibit D Containing Ledger Of Transportation, Octroi & Staff Welfare Expenses.

…htra, who are indulging in issuing invoices without supplying the material. It was contended that the burden is upon the Department to prove that the transactions were bogus. Reliance was placed upon the decision in the case of Durga Prasad Goel vs ITO (2006) 98 ITD 227 (Agr) (SB). On the issue of proving that the transactions were bogus, it was contended that burden is upon the taxing authority for which reliance was placed upon the following decisions. 5 Kamlesh S. Mehta i. Kalwa Devadattam vs UOI 49 ITR 165 (SC) ii. CIT vs Daulatram Rawatmal 87 ITR 349 (SC) iii. CIT vs Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540 (SC) On v…

Durga Prashad Goyal v. ITO (98 ITD 227) — Cited in 10 Judgments | BharatTax