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

Bharat Yashwant Gawas, Sindhudurg vs. ITO, Ward 1, Kudal

Accordingly grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 1261/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shir Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1261/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Bharat Yashwant Gawas, Vs The Income Tax Officer, Gavthanwadi Zolambe, Ward-1, Kudal. Doodamarg, Sindhudurg, - 416510. Maharashtra. Pan: Aukpg5256A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Umesh Kumar Madhukar Mali – Ar Revenue By Shri Sandeep P Sathe – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 20/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18/09/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, Dated 28.11.2023 For The A.Y.2013-14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : Bharat Yashwant Gawas [A]

Section 148Section 250Section 69A

…O has not independently carried out any verification with reference to the said data. Thus the reasons recorded by the AO are based on vague, nonspecific information. 6.1 The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ganga Saran & Sons P Ltd V ITO [1981] 130 ITR 1 (SC) has observed as under : Quote,“The important words under section 147(a) are "has reason to believe" and these words are stronger than the words "is satisfied". The belief entertained by the ITO must not be arbitrary or irrational. It must be reasonable or in other words it must be based on reasons which are relevant and material. The Court, of…

Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Surat, Gujrat vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the three appeal for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 of the assessee are allowed

ITA 759/KOL/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.757 To 759/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aafcp2218P) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appeared For Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 26.08.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: The Captioned Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2011-12 To 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 03.11.2022 Arising Out Of The Separate Assessment Orders U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata Dated 31.12.2018. Since Grounds Of Appeal Raised In These Appeals Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Dispose Of All These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

…to his own discretion. If discretion is exercised under the direction or compliance with some higher authorities instruction, then it will be a cases of failure to exercise discretion altogether. 17. In the case of Ganga Saran and Sons P. Ltd. v. ITO, [1981] 130 ITR 1 (SC) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held: “It is well settled as a result of several decision of this Court that two distinct condition must be satisfied before the AO can assume jurisdiction to issue notice u/s 147. First he must have reason to believe that the income of assessee has escaped assessment. – The important words under Section 147(a) are “h…

Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Surat, Gujrat vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the three appeal for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 of the assessee are allowed

ITA 758/KOL/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.757 To 759/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aafcp2218P) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appeared For Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 26.08.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: The Captioned Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2011-12 To 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 03.11.2022 Arising Out Of The Separate Assessment Orders U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata Dated 31.12.2018. Since Grounds Of Appeal Raised In These Appeals Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Dispose Of All These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

…to his own discretion. If discretion is exercised under the direction or compliance with some higher authorities instruction, then it will be a cases of failure to exercise discretion altogether. 17. In the case of Ganga Saran and Sons P. Ltd. v. ITO, [1981] 130 ITR 1 (SC) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held: “It is well settled as a result of several decision of this Court that two distinct condition must be satisfied before the AO can assume jurisdiction to issue notice u/s 147. First he must have reason to believe that the income of assessee has escaped assessment. – The important words under Section 147(a) are “h…

Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Surat, Gujrat vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the three appeal for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 of the assessee are allowed

ITA 757/KOL/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.757 To 759/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aafcp2218P) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appeared For Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 26.08.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: The Captioned Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2011-12 To 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 03.11.2022 Arising Out Of The Separate Assessment Orders U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata Dated 31.12.2018. Since Grounds Of Appeal Raised In These Appeals Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Dispose Of All These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

…to his own discretion. If discretion is exercised under the direction or compliance with some higher authorities instruction, then it will be a cases of failure to exercise discretion altogether. 17. In the case of Ganga Saran and Sons P. Ltd. v. ITO, [1981] 130 ITR 1 (SC) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held: “It is well settled as a result of several decision of this Court that two distinct condition must be satisfied before the AO can assume jurisdiction to issue notice u/s 147. First he must have reason to believe that the income of assessee has escaped assessment. – The important words under Section 147(a) are “h…

Alosha Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 4(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 356/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…rs reported in [1971 ]82 ITR 147 (SC) (ii) S.Narayanappa And Others -Vs- Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore reported in [1967]63 ITR219(SC) 4 Alosha Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (iii) Ganga Saran & Sons P. Ltd -Vs- Income-Tax Officer And Others reported in [1981] 130 ITR 1 (SC) (iv) Commissioner of Income-tax -Vs- Spirit Global Construction (P) Ltd reported in [2023] 153 taxmann.com 641 (Delhi). (v) Commissioner of Income-tax -Vs- Batra Bhatta Company reported in [2010] 321 ITR 526 (Del)- (vi) Chhugamri Rajpal -Vs- S.P.Chaliha And Others reported in (1971) 79 ITR 603 (SC). (vii) Bharat Jayantilal Patel Vs. Union of I…

Santosh Khunteta, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-29(5), Delhi

In the result, Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3139/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 56

…invoked. The Ld. Counsel has relied on following judicial pronouncement of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court. (i) Johri Lal (HUF) vs. CIT, 88 ITR 439 (SC). (ii) Sheo Nath Singh vs. AAC, 82 ITR 147 (SC). iii) Ganga Saran & Sons (P) Ltd. vs. ITO, 130 ITR 1 (SC). (iv) ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das, 103 ITR 437(SC) (v) Commissioner of Income Tax v.G&G Pharma (2015) 384 ITR 147 (Del.) (vi) CIT vs Insecticides India Ltd 357 ITR 330, Delhi High Court. vii) CIT vs SFIL Stock Broking Ltd 325 ITR 285, Delhi High Court; (viii)Sarthak Securities Co. (P).Ltd vs ITO, 329 ITR 110, (Delhi HC); (ix) PCIT vs RMG Poly V…

Priyasha Meven Finance Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3814/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3814/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16) Priyasha Meven Finance बिधम/ Acit, Circle-4(2)(1) Ltd Room No. 642/669, Vs. R 404 Rotunda Building, Aayakar Bhawan, M. K. Bombay Samachar Marg, Road, Mumbai-400020. Fort-400001. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcp2042F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mani Jain Revenue By: Shri H. M. Bhatt (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/03/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi, Dated 28.08.2023 For Ay. 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Challenged The Validity Of The Reopening By Ao (Jurisdiction) U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). So The Legal Issue Is Taken Up First. According To The Ld. Ar, The Assessee Had Not Taken This Legal Issue Before The Ld. Cit(A). However, According To Him, Since It Is A Legal Issue, It Can Be Raised For The First Time Before This Tribunal & For Such A Preposition Relied Upon The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Ntpc Vs. Cit (229 Itr 383) (Sc). Per Contra, The Ld. Dr Objects To Raising Of This Legal Issue Before This Tribunal For The First Time. According To Him, The Assessee Had Not Taken Up This Issue Before The Ld. Cit(A), Therefore, The Same Should Be Remanded Back To The File Of The Ld.

For Appellant: Shri Mani JainFor Respondent: Shri H. M. Bhatt (Sr. DR)
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…), we find that “Reasons to believe, escapement of income’ as recorded by the AO (supra) to reopen the assessment in the hands of the assessee company for AY 2015-16, have not met the essential requirement of law [ refer M/s Ganga Saran & sons (P) Ltd vs ITO (130 ITR 1)(SC)]. Therefore, we are inclined to quash the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act dated 29/30.03.2017 and consequently the re- assessment framed dated 30.12.2017 is null in the eyes of law. 9. Since the assessee succeeded on legal issue, the other grounds of appeal are not decided, which are academic. 13 A.Y. 2015-16 Priyasha Meven Finance Ltd 10.…

Geeta Devi Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(4), Jaipur

ITA 396/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234A

…l 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 ITO v/s Lakhmani Mewal 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. The Act, no doubt, contemplates the…

Springer Verlag Gmbh, New Delhi vs. DDIT, New Delhi

ITA 3660/DEL/2009[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice-

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjeev Chaudhary, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 44C

…Sur Buildcon (P) Ltd. (2021) 90 ITR(T) 300. (iii). Calcutta Discount Company Ltd. v. ITO (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC) (iv). Sheo Nath Singh v. AAC (1971) 82 ITR 147 (SC) (v). Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC) (vi). Gangasaran & Sons (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (1981) 130 ITR 1 (SC) (vii). CIT v. Lucas TVS Ltd (2001) 117 Taxman 366 (SC) (viii) United Electricals Company (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2002) 178 CTR 192(Delhi HC). 9. Strongly relying upon the observations of learned first appellate authority, learned Departmental Representative submitted, admittedly, the assessee had not filed any return of income for all these asse…

Sprnger Verlag Gmbh vs. DDIT, Circle-2(2)

ITA 645/DEL/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2024AY 2001-2002

Bench: G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice-

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjeev Chaudhary, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 44C

…Sur Buildcon (P) Ltd. (2021) 90 ITR(T) 300. (iii). Calcutta Discount Company Ltd. v. ITO (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC) (iv). Sheo Nath Singh v. AAC (1971) 82 ITR 147 (SC) (v). Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC) (vi). Gangasaran & Sons (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (1981) 130 ITR 1 (SC) (vii). CIT v. Lucas TVS Ltd (2001) 117 Taxman 366 (SC) (viii) United Electricals Company (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2002) 178 CTR 192(Delhi HC). 9. Strongly relying upon the observations of learned first appellate authority, learned Departmental Representative submitted, admittedly, the assessee had not filed any return of income for all these asse…

Springer Verlag Gmbh vs. DDIT, Circle-2(2)

ITA 644/DEL/2005[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2024AY 2000-2001

Bench: G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice-

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjeev Chaudhary, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 44C

…Sur Buildcon (P) Ltd. (2021) 90 ITR(T) 300. (iii). Calcutta Discount Company Ltd. v. ITO (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC) (iv). Sheo Nath Singh v. AAC (1971) 82 ITR 147 (SC) (v). Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC) (vi). Gangasaran & Sons (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (1981) 130 ITR 1 (SC) (vii). CIT v. Lucas TVS Ltd (2001) 117 Taxman 366 (SC) (viii) United Electricals Company (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2002) 178 CTR 192(Delhi HC). 9. Strongly relying upon the observations of learned first appellate authority, learned Departmental Representative submitted, admittedly, the assessee had not filed any return of income for all these asse…

Springer Verlag Gmbh vs. DDIT, Circle-2(2)

ITA 643/DEL/2005[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2024AY 1999-2000

Bench: G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice-

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjeev Chaudhary, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 44C

…Sur Buildcon (P) Ltd. (2021) 90 ITR(T) 300. (iii). Calcutta Discount Company Ltd. v. ITO (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC) (iv). Sheo Nath Singh v. AAC (1971) 82 ITR 147 (SC) (v). Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC) (vi). Gangasaran & Sons (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (1981) 130 ITR 1 (SC) (vii). CIT v. Lucas TVS Ltd (2001) 117 Taxman 366 (SC) (viii) United Electricals Company (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2002) 178 CTR 192(Delhi HC). 9. Strongly relying upon the observations of learned first appellate authority, learned Departmental Representative submitted, admittedly, the assessee had not filed any return of income for all these asse…

ACIT, Ernakulam vs. Appolo Tyres Ltd, Cochin

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals as well as the Assessee’s COs, are allowed

ITA 140/COCH/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjit K. Das, CIT-DR and Smt
Section 147

…., at the time of original assessment, may, where so, eschew reassessment proceedings even for AY 2011-12, rendering the same as a change of opinion. The two aspects are inter-related, with there being decisions, as in Ganga Saran & Sons P. Ltd. v. ITO [1981] 130 ITR 1 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court found no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts, holding, on that basis, the AO could not have a reason to believe that any part of income had escaped assessment. The matter is to be examined from the stand-point of the obligation on the assessee to disclose all material facts necessary f…

ACIT, Ernakulam vs. Appolo Tyres Ltd, Cochin

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals as well as the Assessee’s COs, are allowed

ITA 139/COCH/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjit K. Das, CIT-DR and Smt
Section 147

…., at the time of original assessment, may, where so, eschew reassessment proceedings even for AY 2011-12, rendering the same as a change of opinion. The two aspects are inter-related, with there being decisions, as in Ganga Saran & Sons P. Ltd. v. ITO [1981] 130 ITR 1 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court found no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts, holding, on that basis, the AO could not have a reason to believe that any part of income had escaped assessment. The matter is to be examined from the stand-point of the obligation on the assessee to disclose all material facts necessary f…

ACIT Circle-59(1), New Delhi vs. Neeraj Kumar Singhal, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 283/DEL/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Shri Amit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Singh, Sr.DR
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)

…al or relevant to the belief required 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." (emphasis supplied) In Ganga Saran & Sons (P) Ltd us. ITO: 130 ITR 1, 11, Their Lordships of the apex Court observed: "The important words under s. 147(a) are "has reason to believe" and these words are stronger than the words "is satisfied" The belief entertained by the ITO must not be arbitrary or irrational. It must be reasonable or in other words it must be based on reasons which are relevant and material. The c…

Kailash Chand Yadav, 100, Kalu Baba Ki Dhani, Sheoshinghpur, Akoda, Phulera-303338 vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), Jaipur

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

ITA 82/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar(Adv.)&For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 69A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf; dlnL; ,o aJh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 82/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2010-11 Kailash Chand Yadav cuke Income Tax Officer, 100, Kalu Baba Ki Dhani, Vs. Ward-1(1), Jaipur. Sheoshinghpura, Akoda, Phulera, Jaipur-303338. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ACXPY 1162 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri S.L. Podd…

I.T.O., Ward-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Variya Denim Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1657/KOL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

…ation and belief based on reason. Even if there is foundation based on information there must be some reason warrant holding the belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment 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 Page 4 of 7 I.T.A. No.: 1657/KOL/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Variya Denim Pvt. Ltd. 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 The information…

Eci Engineering & Construction Company Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2), Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 968/HYD/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 May 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Eci Engineering & Income Tax, Construction Co., Ltd., Circle 17(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita 968/Hyd/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 M/S. Eci Engineering & Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Construction Co., Ltd., Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy. Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.05.2023 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Respectively, Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Hyderabad Dated 30.03.2016 For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Abridged Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Ita No.968/Hyd/2016 Read As Under : “1. The Order Of Ld.Cit(A) - 5 Is Erroneous In Law In Facts & In Law. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Decision Of The Ld.Ao In Treating Sale Of Partly Paid Up Shares As Fully Paid & Confirming The Addition Of Rs.50,14,625/- As Long Term Capital Gain. 3. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.27,69,422/- Towards Difference In Interest. 4. Further, The Ld.Cit(A) Failed To Observe That The Notes To Financial Statements Clearly Mentioned The Interest Income Which Pertained To The Previous Year & Accordingly Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Ld.Ao In Assessing The Difference In Interest Of Rs.27,69,422/-. 5. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Difference Of Prior Period Income Of Rs.1,26,71,371/-.”

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40

…n is bad in law. i. CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (FB) (256 ITR 1) (Del.HC) ii. CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd (320 . ITR 561) (SC) iii. ACIT vs. ICICI Securities Primary . Dealership Ltd. (348 ITR 299) (SC) iv. Ganga Saran & Sons (P.) Ltd. v. ITO 1 [(1981) 130 ITR 1] (SC) v. Kohinoor Hatcheries (P.) 1 Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2016] 76 taxmann.com 150 (AP.HC) vi. OHM Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. v. 1 CIT (351 ITR 443) (bom.HC) vii. Runwal Realty (P.) Ltd.v.DCIT 1 (107 taxmann.com 284) (bom.HC) viii. Arvind Remedies (378 ITR 547) (Mad.HC) ix. Indian Bank(63 taxmann.com 145)(Mad HC) x. Godrej Agrovet…

DCIT, Circle-17(1), Hyd, Hyderabad vs. Eci Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 930/HYD/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 May 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Eci Engineering & Income Tax, Construction Co., Ltd., Circle 17(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita 968/Hyd/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 M/S. Eci Engineering & Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Construction Co., Ltd., Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy. Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.05.2023 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Respectively, Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Hyderabad Dated 30.03.2016 For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Abridged Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Ita No.968/Hyd/2016 Read As Under : “1. The Order Of Ld.Cit(A) - 5 Is Erroneous In Law In Facts & In Law. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Decision Of The Ld.Ao In Treating Sale Of Partly Paid Up Shares As Fully Paid & Confirming The Addition Of Rs.50,14,625/- As Long Term Capital Gain. 3. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.27,69,422/- Towards Difference In Interest. 4. Further, The Ld.Cit(A) Failed To Observe That The Notes To Financial Statements Clearly Mentioned The Interest Income Which Pertained To The Previous Year & Accordingly Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Ld.Ao In Assessing The Difference In Interest Of Rs.27,69,422/-. 5. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Difference Of Prior Period Income Of Rs.1,26,71,371/-.”

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40

…n is bad in law. i. CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (FB) (256 ITR 1) (Del.HC) ii. CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd (320 . ITR 561) (SC) iii. ACIT vs. ICICI Securities Primary . Dealership Ltd. (348 ITR 299) (SC) iv. Ganga Saran & Sons (P.) Ltd. v. ITO 1 [(1981) 130 ITR 1] (SC) v. Kohinoor Hatcheries (P.) 1 Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2016] 76 taxmann.com 150 (AP.HC) vi. OHM Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. v. 1 CIT (351 ITR 443) (bom.HC) vii. Runwal Realty (P.) Ltd.v.DCIT 1 (107 taxmann.com 284) (bom.HC) viii. Arvind Remedies (378 ITR 547) (Mad.HC) ix. Indian Bank(63 taxmann.com 145)(Mad HC) x. Godrej Agrovet…

Deepak Jain, C-Scheme vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Bhagwan Das Road

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 196/JPR/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Chaudhary (Addl. CIT) a
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 44ASection 68

…, the process of arriving at such satisfaction cannot merely be such information. Recording of reasons to believe and not reasons to suspect is the prerequisite to the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147. 1.9. In Ganga Saran and Sons Pvt. Ltd. (1991) 130 ITR 1 (SC), Hon’ble Apex Court observed that the words "reason to believe” are stronger than the words “reason to be satisfied". Since the words used are reason to believe the satisfaction theory would not apply but the belief must be reasonable and based on relevant materials. It is clear, that in the instant case of the assessee, reopening action was d…