Ganga Saran and Sons P. Ltd. v. ITO

130 ITR 1Supreme Court of India1981#378 most cited

What is Ganga Saran and Sons P. Ltd. v. ITO authority for?

A mere charge of bogus expenses, without a specific finding that the assessee failed to disclose material facts, is insufficient to justify reassessment beyond four years under the first proviso to Section 147. Courts can examine the materiality and relevance of facts forming the 'reason to believe' for initiating reassessment, ensuring it is based on reasonable grounds.

234

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Ganga Saran and Sons P. Ltd. v. ITO · Section 147 · Section 148 · first proviso to section 147 · reason to believe · income escaping assessment · material facts disclosure · bogus expenses · reassessment beyond four years · judicial review of reasons

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 143(3)Section 151Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 133ASection 144

Issues it is cited on

true and full disclosurefirst proviso to section 147material facts necessary for assessmentsection 148(2)kelvinatorlive linkmere change of opinionfresh tangible materialsection 151(1)sanctioning authoritybeyond four yearsincome escaping assessment

Judgments citing Ganga Saran and Sons P. Ltd. v. ITO

Saroj Devi Haldiya, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-6(1), Jaipur

ITA 917/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri S.B. Natani, CAFor Respondent: Mrs.Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(ix)Section 57

…10 41 DTR 98 (Del) ii. Pr. CIT Vs G & G Pharma India Ltd (Delhi High Court) dated 08.10.2015 iii. Signature Hotels P limited Vs ITO 2011 60 DTR 30 (Del) iv. Sarthak securities P limited Vs ITO 2010 329 ITR 110 (Del) v. Ganga saran & sons P. Ltd. V. ITO (1981) 130 ITR 1 (SC) vi. Charanjiv Agarwal vs. Income Tax Officer. I. T. A. No. 598/Asr/2015 vii. ACIT Vs Dinesh kumar (ITAT Delhi) dated 31.10.2014 viii. Unique Metal Industries Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) dated 28.10.2015 Section 147 & 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 – Reassessment Reassessment proceedings were invalid and bad in law as the reasons recorded were undated…

Rms Karamchari Bachat and Sakh Sahakari Samiti Limited Jaipur, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-1(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 246/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 250

…rement of a "reason to believe" and not merely a "reason to suspect." The term "believe" implies a concrete and reliable basis, distinct from mere suspicion or opinion. Reference is made to the precedent set in Gangasharan& Sons Pvt. Ltd. v/s ITO &Anr. (1981) 130 ITR 1 (SC). The initiation of the reassessment proceedings lacks the necessary foundation of a "reason to believe," as the AO relied solely on information received from ITBA Portal, without demonstrating how it indicates an escapement of income. The AO's actions were based on suspicion rather than a genuine belief in income escaping assessment, violating…

Rms Karamchari Bachat and Sakh Sahakari Samiti Limited Jaipur, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-1(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 245/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 250

…rement of a "reason to believe" and not merely a "reason to suspect." The term "believe" implies a concrete and reliable basis, distinct from mere suspicion or opinion. Reference is made to the precedent set in Gangasharan& Sons Pvt. Ltd. v/s ITO &Anr. (1981) 130 ITR 1 (SC). The initiation of the reassessment proceedings lacks the necessary foundation of a "reason to believe," as the AO relied solely on information received from ITBA Portal, without demonstrating how it indicates an escapement of income. The AO's actions were based on suspicion rather than a genuine belief in income escaping assessment, violating…

Rms Karamchari Bachat and Sakh Sahakari Samiti Limited Jaipur, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 244/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 250

…rement of a "reason to believe" and not merely a "reason to suspect." The term "believe" implies a concrete and reliable basis, distinct from mere suspicion or opinion. Reference is made to the precedent set in Gangasharan& Sons Pvt. Ltd. v/s ITO &Anr. (1981) 130 ITR 1 (SC). The initiation of the reassessment proceedings lacks the necessary foundation of a "reason to believe," as the AO relied solely on information received from ITBA Portal, without demonstrating how it indicates an escapement of income. The AO's actions were based on suspicion rather than a genuine belief in income escaping assessment, violating…

Rms Karamchari Bachat and Sakh Sahakari Samiti Limited Jaipur, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-1(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 243/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 250

…rement of a "reason to believe" and not merely a "reason to suspect." The term "believe" implies a concrete and reliable basis, distinct from mere suspicion or opinion. Reference is made to the precedent set in Gangasharan& Sons Pvt. Ltd. v/s ITO &Anr. (1981) 130 ITR 1 (SC). The initiation of the reassessment proceedings lacks the necessary foundation of a "reason to believe," as the AO relied solely on information received from ITBA Portal, without demonstrating how it indicates an escapement of income. The AO's actions were based on suspicion rather than a genuine belief in income escaping assessment, violating…

Mo. Shariph Kureshi, Sikar vs. ITO Ward-4 Sikar, Sikar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 366/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

…ght since inception till date, are “reason to believe" and not "reason to suspect". The word “believe” has to be understood in contradistinction of suspicion or opinion. Belief indicates something concrete or reliable. Kindly refer Gangasharan& Sons Pvt. Ltd. 130 ITR 1 (SC), and ITO v. LakhmaniMewal Das, (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC). 9 Mo. Shariph Kureshi, Sikar. 4.2The belief of the Officer should be as to escapement of income and the belief should not be a product of imagination or speculation. There must be reason to induce the belief. 4.3Further, the belief must be of an honest and reasonable person based upon…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle), Bareilly vs. Varunarjun Trust, Lucknow

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 620/LKW/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 12ASection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 153C

…swer to the substantial question of law is in favour of the assessee and against the Department. In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is dismissed." Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ganga Saran & Sons P. Ltd. Vs. 2 Income-Tax Officer and others, 1981 Vol.130 ITR 1, the Supreme Court held: "It is well settled as a result of several decisions of this Court that two distinct conditions must be satisfied before the Income Tax Officer can assume jurisdiction to issue notice under section 147 (a). First, he must have reason to believe that the income of the assessee has escaped Page 31 of 87 I.T.A. No.619 & 620/…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Bareilly vs. Varunarjun Trust, Lucknow

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 619/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 12ASection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 153C

…swer to the substantial question of law is in favour of the assessee and against the Department. In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is dismissed." Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ganga Saran & Sons P. Ltd. Vs. 2 Income-Tax Officer and others, 1981 Vol.130 ITR 1, the Supreme Court held: "It is well settled as a result of several decisions of this Court that two distinct conditions must be satisfied before the Income Tax Officer can assume jurisdiction to issue notice under section 147 (a). First, he must have reason to believe that the income of the assessee has escaped Page 31 of 87 I.T.A. No.619 & 620/…

M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Ncc-8(1), Ltu-II, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 601/CHNY/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)(iia)

…n information, is made, there still must be some reason, which should warrant the holding of a belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. It has to be kept in mind that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ganga Saran & Sons P. Ltd. Vs. ITO (1981) 130 ITR 1 (SC) held that the expression “reason to believe” occurring in sec. 147 “is stronger” than the expression “if satisfied” and such requirement has to be met by the AO in the reasons recorded before usurping the jurisdiction u/s. 147 of the Act. At this stage, authorities must understand the fine distinction between “reason to suspect” & ‘reason…

Ability Services Private Limited, Sakchi vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Jamshedpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 20/RAN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi09 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.20/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ability Services Pvt. Ltd…….....................…...........................……….……Appellant 232 Kumhar Para, New Baradwari Sakchi, Jharkhand-831001. [Pan: Aacce1395H] Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Jamshedpur.....…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 02, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 09, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 18.12.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Contract & Transportation & Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2014-15 By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.81,52,900/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny & Assessment Was Framed On A Total Assessed Income Of Rs.84,49,220/-. Subsequnetly, Proceedings U/S 148 Were Initiated Vide Notice Dated 30.03.2021 & Assessment Was Completed On 20.03.2022 Wherein The Assessing Officer Made Addition Of Excess Depreciation Of Rs.36,64,657/- & Payment Of Epf/Esi Beyond The Due Date But Prior To Filing Of Return Of Rs.5,31,940/-

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…in first proviso to section 147 of the Act is not satisfied and therefore reopening of assessment is not sustainable. 5.2 In this respect, the ld. AR relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court as in the case of Ganga Saran & Sons (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (1981) 130 ITR 1, where it was held that mere change of opinion or vague assumption of the Assessing Officer is not a valid ground for reopening completed assessment, it must be based on failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts necessary for the assessment. 6. On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the decisions rendered b…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 2 Kolkata vs. M/S Purple Suppliers Pvt Ltd

The appeals are dismissed and the substantial

ITAT/86/2025HC Calcutta04 Jul 2025

Bench: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 260A

…but to other companies and the entities as well. Therefore, the learned Tribunal was justified in holding that the reopening was carried out based on borrowed satisfaction and mere change of opinion. In 7 Ganga Saran and Sons P. Ltd. vs. ITO, [1981] 130 ITR 1 (SC), it has been held that two distinct conditions were to be satisfied before the Assessing Officer can assume jurisdiction to issue notice under section 147 of the Act, the first reason to believe is that income of the assessee has escaped assessment. The important words in the said section 147(a) are “has reason to believe” and these words…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 2 Kolkata vs. M/S Purple Suppliers Pvt Ltd

The appeals are dismissed and the substantial

ITAT/84/2025HC Calcutta04 Jul 2025

Bench: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 260A

…but to other companies and the entities as well. Therefore, the learned Tribunal was justified in holding that the reopening was carried out based on borrowed satisfaction and mere change of opinion. In 7 Ganga Saran and Sons P. Ltd. vs. ITO, [1981] 130 ITR 1 (SC), it has been held that two distinct conditions were to be satisfied before the Assessing Officer can assume jurisdiction to issue notice under section 147 of the Act, the first reason to believe is that income of the assessee has escaped assessment. The important words in the said section 147(a) are “has reason to believe” and these words…

Sunil Kumar Choudhary HUF, Dabagardens vs. ACIT, Ranchi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 470/RAN/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi02 Jul 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.470/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sunil Kumar Choudhary Huf...................…...........................……….……Appellant 30-15-138/20 Binoy Aka Complex, Opp. Bsnl Office, Andra Pradesh-530020. [Pan: Aabhs6048Q] Vs. Acit……………………..........…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar & R. R. Mittal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 26, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 2Nd , 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 07.10.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Huf & Engaged In The Business Of Wholesaler, Transporter, Lease Rent. The Assessee Filed Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2012-13 By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.16,72,850/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected Under Cass Followed Notices Issued U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act & Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) On 25.03.2015 With Assessed Income Of Rs.16,89,850/-. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 By Issuing Notice U/S 148 Of The Act. The Assessee Sought Reasons Recorded For Reopening, However The Assessing Officer Rejected Such Request Stating That The Assessee Failed To File Return In

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

…in first proviso to section 147 of the Act is not satisfied and therefore reopening of assessment is not sustainable. 5.2 In this respect, the ld. AR relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court as in the case of Ganga Saran & Sons (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (1981) 130 ITR 1, where it was held that mere change of opinion or vague assumption of the Assessing Officer is not a valid ground for reopening completed assessment, it must be based on failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts necessary for the assessment. 6. On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the decisions rendered b…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. A & D Estates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result we upheld the decision of the Ld

ITA 1729/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…he belief. Such a belief has not to be based on mere suspicion but it must be based on information as was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. Vs. ITO 41 ITR 191. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ganga Saran & Sons Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 130 ITR 1. have held that the words "reason to believe" are stronger than the word "satisfied" and the belief entertained must not be arbitrary or irrational and it must be reasonable and be based on reasons which are relevant and material. It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Narayanappa vs. CIT 63 ITR 219 that belief must be held in good…

A. Jayapalan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-3(2), Chennai

ITA 491/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.491/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Stay Application No.21/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Annamalai Jayapalan, 3/400, 10Th Street, Venkateshwara Nagar, Kottivakkam, Chennai-600 041. [Pan: Aadpj 3842 Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By V. The Dcit, Corporate Circle-3(2), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Mr.K. Meenatchi Sundaram, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Mr.Keerthi Narayanan, Jcit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.06.2025 आदेश / Order Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Ld.Cit(A)"), Delhi, Dated 29.01.2025 For The

For Respondent: Mr.Keerthi Narayanan, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…on information, is made, there still must be some reason, which should warrant the holding of a belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. It has to be kept in mind that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ganga Saran & Sons P. Ltd. Vs. ITO (1981) 130 ITR 1 (SC) held that the expression "reason to believe” occurring in sec. 147 “is stronger" than the expression…

Akshat Loyalka, Jaipur vs. Rjn-C-(101)(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 1019/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 May 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 234ASection 250Section 5Section 69A

…ill date, are “reason to believe" and not "reason to suspect". The word “believe” has to be understood in contradistinction of suspicion or opinion. Belief indicates something concrete or reliable. Kindly refer Gangasharan& Sons Pvt. Ltd. v/s ITO &Anr. (1981) 130 ITR 1 (SC) and Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO v/s LakhmaniMewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC) has held that: “12. The powers of the ITO to reopen assessment, though wide, are not plenary. The words of the statute are "reason to believe" and not "reason to suspect". The reopening to the assessment after the lapse of many years is a serious matter.…

Bses Yamuna Power Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-5(1), New Del;Hi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal issues

ITA 4853/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalbses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Dy. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Asst. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Yamuna Power Dy. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. & Ors Vs. Acit Bses Yamuna Power Asst. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Sh. Deepesh Jain, Adv. & Sh. Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Mr. Javed Akhtar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/04/2025 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250

…ed by the section. The court can always examine this aspect though the declaration or sufficiency of the reasons for the belief cannot be investigated by the court." 52. It has been similarly held in the following decisions: Ganga Saran & Sons (P) Ltd vs. ITO 130 ITR 1 (SC); Birla VXL vs. ACIT 217 ITR 1 (Guj); Multiscreen Media (P) Ltd. vs UOI 324 ITR 54 (Bom.) ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das 103 ITR 437, 448 (SC) Arjun Singh vs. ADIT 246 ITR 363 (MP) Seth Brothers vs. JCIT 251 ITR 270 (Guj.) Bombay Pharma Products vs. ITO 237 ITR 614 (MP) Lokendra Singh Rathore vs. WTO 155 ITR 629 (MP) United Electrical Co. (P) Limit…

Bses Yamuna Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 5(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal issues

ITA 4852/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalbses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Dy. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Asst. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Yamuna Power Dy. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. & Ors Vs. Acit Bses Yamuna Power Asst. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Sh. Deepesh Jain, Adv. & Sh. Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Mr. Javed Akhtar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/04/2025 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250

…ed by the section. The court can always examine this aspect though the declaration or sufficiency of the reasons for the belief cannot be investigated by the court." 52. It has been similarly held in the following decisions: Ganga Saran & Sons (P) Ltd vs. ITO 130 ITR 1 (SC); Birla VXL vs. ACIT 217 ITR 1 (Guj); Multiscreen Media (P) Ltd. vs UOI 324 ITR 54 (Bom.) ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das 103 ITR 437, 448 (SC) Arjun Singh vs. ADIT 246 ITR 363 (MP) Seth Brothers vs. JCIT 251 ITR 270 (Guj.) Bombay Pharma Products vs. ITO 237 ITR 614 (MP) Lokendra Singh Rathore vs. WTO 155 ITR 629 (MP) United Electrical Co. (P) Limit…

Madanraj Hamirmal Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO, Erode

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1335/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1334 & 1335/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Madanraj Hamirmal Shah Income Tax Officer, C-405, Royal Samrat, Ward -1(2), S.V. Road,Goregoan West, V. Erode. Mumbai – 400 062. [Pan: Adwpm-2343-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. P.C. Jain, Advocate & Shri. Mohit Bangani, Advocate ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. P. Vijaideepan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.03.2025

For Appellant: Shri. P.C. Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. P. Vijaideepan, JCIT
Section 147Section 148

…ation or evidence of income escapement. Case Law Reference: 1. Hon'ble Bench of ITAT- Chennai in Premlatha Chhajed v/s The Income Tax Officer NCW - 5(4), Chennai (ITA No.2233/Mds/2017) 2.Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ganga Saran & sons P. Ltd. Reported in 130 ITR 1 3.Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in ITO v/s Lakhmanimewal Das reported in (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC) 3. Violation of Natural Justice: The appellant was not given adequate opportunity to be heard, as the notice to file a reply was unreasonably short given the circumstances of age and health. The AO's actions are criticized as hasty and impractical, cau…

Madanraj Hamirmal Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO, Erode

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1334/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1334 & 1335/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Madanraj Hamirmal Shah Income Tax Officer, C-405, Royal Samrat, Ward -1(2), S.V. Road,Goregoan West, V. Erode. Mumbai – 400 062. [Pan: Adwpm-2343-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. P.C. Jain, Advocate & Shri. Mohit Bangani, Advocate ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. P. Vijaideepan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.03.2025

For Appellant: Shri. P.C. Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. P. Vijaideepan, JCIT
Section 147Section 148

…ation or evidence of income escapement. Case Law Reference: 1. Hon'ble Bench of ITAT- Chennai in Premlatha Chhajed v/s The Income Tax Officer NCW - 5(4), Chennai (ITA No.2233/Mds/2017) 2.Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ganga Saran & sons P. Ltd. Reported in 130 ITR 1 3.Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in ITO v/s Lakhmanimewal Das reported in (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC) 3. Violation of Natural Justice: The appellant was not given adequate opportunity to be heard, as the notice to file a reply was unreasonably short given the circumstances of age and health. The AO's actions are criticized as hasty and impractical, cau…