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 367,154 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

M/S. Bansiwala Iron & Steel Rolling Mills, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1388/JPR/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1388/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2008-09 Cuke M/S Bansiwala Iron & Steel Rolling Mills, D.C.I.T., 2Nd Floor, Somani Building, S.C. Link Vs. Circle-3, Road, Loha Mandi, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aadfb 2375 A Appellant Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Mahendra Gargieya & Shri Dewang Gargieya (Advs) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/09/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya &For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Singh (CIT-DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 69

…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). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of 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…

Shri Satya Narayan Bairwa, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Jaipur

In the result, both these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 869/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 867 & 869/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Years :2008-09 & 2009-10 Cuke Shri Satya Narayan Bairwa, I.T.O., Vs. 97/77, Shipra Path, Ward-2(4), Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj). Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Ahppb 0077 J Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shravan Kumar Gupta (Adv.) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 20/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order

For Appellant: Shri Shravan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)
Section 147Section 151Section 234ASection 69A

…ht 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. Lakhmani Mewal Das, (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC). 5.2The 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. The Court can always examine this aspect though the declaration or sufficiency of the reasons for the belief…

Shri Satya Narayan Bairwa, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Jaipur

In the result, both these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 867/JPR/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 867 & 869/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Years :2008-09 & 2009-10 Cuke Shri Satya Narayan Bairwa, I.T.O., Vs. 97/77, Shipra Path, Ward-2(4), Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj). Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Ahppb 0077 J Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shravan Kumar Gupta (Adv.) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 20/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order

For Appellant: Shri Shravan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)
Section 147Section 151Section 234ASection 69A

…ht 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. Lakhmani Mewal Das, (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC). 5.2The 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. The Court can always examine this aspect though the declaration or sufficiency of the reasons for the belief…

M/S Reliance Chemotex Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-10(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 58/KOL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Hon’Ble & Dr. M. L. Meena, Hon’Ble]

Section 147

…reasonable enquiry and collect material which would make him believe that there is in fact an escapement of income. And the “reason to believe occurring in Section 147 of the Act” is stronger than the expression “is satisfied” (Refer M/s Ganga Saran vs. ITO, 130 ITR 1). Here in this case, the AO if had made some preliminary enquiry after receipt of information then this kind of goof up could have been avoided. Thus in this case the AO 7 M/s. Reliance Chemotex Ind. Ltd., AY 2011-12 has erroneously assumed the existence of jurisdictional fact/incorrect fact, so the reasons recorded to form the believe fails to st…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Bbn Transportation Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeals are dismissed in favour of the

ITA 6176/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jul 2021AY 2008-09
Section 147Section 148Section 68

…are not extraneous or irrelevant to the purpose of the section. To this limited extent, the action of the Income-tax Officer in starting proceedings under s. 34 of the Act is open to challenge in a court of law.” - Ganga Saran & Sons (P.) Ltd. v. ITO, [1981] 130 ITR 1 (SC): “6. ......... 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 course, cannot…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sur Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeals are dismissed in favour of the

ITA 6174/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jul 2021AY 2009-10
Section 147Section 148Section 68

…are not extraneous or irrelevant to the purpose of the section. To this limited extent, the action of the Income-tax Officer in starting proceedings under s. 34 of the Act is open to challenge in a court of law.” - Ganga Saran & Sons (P.) Ltd. v. ITO, [1981] 130 ITR 1 (SC): “6. ......... 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 course, cannot…

Tapan Chakraborty, Durgapur vs. I.T.O., Ward-1(2), Durgapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1055/KOL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 1Section 133(6)Section 147Section 68

…ased 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 income. In this context it must be remembered that Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Ganga Saran & sons (P) Ltd. vs. 130 ITR 1 (SC) has held that the expression “Reason to believe” occurring in section 147 of the Act is stronger than the expression “is satisfied” and such requirement has to be met by the AO before he usurp the jurisdiction to re-open an assessment. So in this case, from a perusal of the reasons recorded by the AO (supra), he has not even stated whether bas…

Shri. Jitendra Virwani, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 47/BANG/2021[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jun 2021AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, CAFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 147Section 234DSection 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 46 & 47/Bang/2021 Assessment years : 2002-03 & 2003-04 Shri Jitendra Virwani, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner No.341, Embassy Woods, of Income-tax, 6A, Cunningham Road, Central Circle 1(3), Vasanth Nagar, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 052. PAN: AAVPV 0738P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri S. Ramasubramanian, CA Respondent by : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 16.04.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 23.06.2021 O R D E R Per…

Shri. Jitendra Virwani, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 46/BANG/2021[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jun 2021AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, CAFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 147Section 234DSection 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 46 & 47/Bang/2021 Assessment years : 2002-03 & 2003-04 Shri Jitendra Virwani, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner No.341, Embassy Woods, of Income-tax, 6A, Cunningham Road, Central Circle 1(3), Vasanth Nagar, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 052. PAN: AAVPV 0738P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri S. Ramasubramanian, CA Respondent by : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 16.04.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 23.06.2021 O R D E R Per…

Jai Prakash Gupta, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-37(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2142/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…ndalone basis; meaning that nothing can be added or omitted in the reasons recorded by the AO. The reasons should speak for itself and there is no scope for guess work. Further in the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ganga Saran and Sons P Ltd. vs. ITO in 130 ITR 1 (SC) held that the expression “reason to believe” as occurring in section 147 of the Act is “stronger” then the expression “is satisfied” which is the requirement of law for the AO to reopen the assessment. Keeping the aforesaid legal principles in mind let me have a look at the reason recorded by the AO to reopen the assessment which is reproduced…

DCIT, C-1, (E), Chandigarh vs. M/S Manav Mangal Society, Chandigarh

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 30/CHANDI/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR
Section 13(3)

…India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) ii). Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs. ITO [1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC). iii). S. Narayanappa Vs CIT[1967] 63 ITR 219 (SC) iv). ITO Vs Lakhmani Mewal Dass [1976] 103 ITR 437 (SC) v). S. Ganga Saran and Sons P. Ltd. Vs ITO [1981] 130 ITR 1(SC) vi). Sri Krishna P. Ltd. V. ITO [1996] 221 ITR 538 (SC). b). The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Director of Income Tax Vs. Rolls Royce Industrial Power India Ltd. has held as under: 8. That in case proceedings under Section 147 are initiated after expiry of four years from the Assessment Year which is subject to scrutiny assessment…

M/S Manav Mangal Society, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), Chandigarh

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 3/CHANDI/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR
Section 13(3)

…India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) ii). Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs. ITO [1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC). iii). S. Narayanappa Vs CIT[1967] 63 ITR 219 (SC) iv). ITO Vs Lakhmani Mewal Dass [1976] 103 ITR 437 (SC) v). S. Ganga Saran and Sons P. Ltd. Vs ITO [1981] 130 ITR 1(SC) vi). Sri Krishna P. Ltd. V. ITO [1996] 221 ITR 538 (SC). b). The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Director of Income Tax Vs. Rolls Royce Industrial Power India Ltd. has held as under: 8. That in case proceedings under Section 147 are initiated after expiry of four years from the Assessment Year which is subject to scrutiny assessment…

DCIT, C-1, (E), Chandigarh vs. M/S Manav Mangal Society, Chandigarh

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 29/CHANDI/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR
Section 13(3)

…India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) ii). Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs. ITO [1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC). iii). S. Narayanappa Vs CIT[1967] 63 ITR 219 (SC) iv). ITO Vs Lakhmani Mewal Dass [1976] 103 ITR 437 (SC) v). S. Ganga Saran and Sons P. Ltd. Vs ITO [1981] 130 ITR 1(SC) vi). Sri Krishna P. Ltd. V. ITO [1996] 221 ITR 538 (SC). b). The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Director of Income Tax Vs. Rolls Royce Industrial Power India Ltd. has held as under: 8. That in case proceedings under Section 147 are initiated after expiry of four years from the Assessment Year which is subject to scrutiny assessment…

DCIT, C-1, (E), Chandigarh vs. M/S Manav Mangal Society, Chandigarh

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 28/CHANDI/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR
Section 13(3)

…India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) ii). Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs. ITO [1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC). iii). S. Narayanappa Vs CIT[1967] 63 ITR 219 (SC) iv). ITO Vs Lakhmani Mewal Dass [1976] 103 ITR 437 (SC) v). S. Ganga Saran and Sons P. Ltd. Vs ITO [1981] 130 ITR 1(SC) vi). Sri Krishna P. Ltd. V. ITO [1996] 221 ITR 538 (SC). b). The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Director of Income Tax Vs. Rolls Royce Industrial Power India Ltd. has held as under: 8. That in case proceedings under Section 147 are initiated after expiry of four years from the Assessment Year which is subject to scrutiny assessment…

DCIT, Circle-1(Exemption), Chandigarh vs. M/S Manav Mangal School( Manav Mangal Society), Chandigarh

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 27/CHANDI/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR
Section 13(3)

…India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) ii). Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs. ITO [1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC). iii). S. Narayanappa Vs CIT[1967] 63 ITR 219 (SC) iv). ITO Vs Lakhmani Mewal Dass [1976] 103 ITR 437 (SC) v). S. Ganga Saran and Sons P. Ltd. Vs ITO [1981] 130 ITR 1(SC) vi). Sri Krishna P. Ltd. V. ITO [1996] 221 ITR 538 (SC). b). The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Director of Income Tax Vs. Rolls Royce Industrial Power India Ltd. has held as under: 8. That in case proceedings under Section 147 are initiated after expiry of four years from the Assessment Year which is subject to scrutiny assessment…

M/S Manav Mangal Society, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), Chandigarh

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 2/CHANDI/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR
Section 13(3)

…India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) ii). Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs. ITO [1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC). iii). S. Narayanappa Vs CIT[1967] 63 ITR 219 (SC) iv). ITO Vs Lakhmani Mewal Dass [1976] 103 ITR 437 (SC) v). S. Ganga Saran and Sons P. Ltd. Vs ITO [1981] 130 ITR 1(SC) vi). Sri Krishna P. Ltd. V. ITO [1996] 221 ITR 538 (SC). b). The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Director of Income Tax Vs. Rolls Royce Industrial Power India Ltd. has held as under: 8. That in case proceedings under Section 147 are initiated after expiry of four years from the Assessment Year which is subject to scrutiny assessment…

DCIT, C-1, (E), Chandigarh vs. M/S Manav Mangal Society, Chandigarh

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 137/CHANDI/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR
Section 13(3)

…India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) ii). Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs. ITO [1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC). iii). S. Narayanappa Vs CIT[1967] 63 ITR 219 (SC) iv). ITO Vs Lakhmani Mewal Dass [1976] 103 ITR 437 (SC) v). S. Ganga Saran and Sons P. Ltd. Vs ITO [1981] 130 ITR 1(SC) vi). Sri Krishna P. Ltd. V. ITO [1996] 221 ITR 538 (SC). b). The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Director of Income Tax Vs. Rolls Royce Industrial Power India Ltd. has held as under: 8. That in case proceedings under Section 147 are initiated after expiry of four years from the Assessment Year which is subject to scrutiny assessment…

DCIT, C-1, (E), Chandigarh vs. M/S Manav Mangal Society, Chandigarh

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 136/CHANDI/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR
Section 13(3)

…India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) ii). Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs. ITO [1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC). iii). S. Narayanappa Vs CIT[1967] 63 ITR 219 (SC) iv). ITO Vs Lakhmani Mewal Dass [1976] 103 ITR 437 (SC) v). S. Ganga Saran and Sons P. Ltd. Vs ITO [1981] 130 ITR 1(SC) vi). Sri Krishna P. Ltd. V. ITO [1996] 221 ITR 538 (SC). b). The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Director of Income Tax Vs. Rolls Royce Industrial Power India Ltd. has held as under: 8. That in case proceedings under Section 147 are initiated after expiry of four years from the Assessment Year which is subject to scrutiny assessment…

Excel Financial Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Howrah vs. I.T.O., Ward-13(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 318/KOL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 147Section 148

…may trigger “reason to suspect”, then the AO to make reasonable enquiry and collect material which could make him believe that there is in fact an escapement of income. According to Ld. AR, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s. Gana Saran & Sons (P) Ltd. vs ITO (130 ITR 1) SC has held that the expression “Reason to believe” as is occurring in section 147 of the Act ‘is stronger” than the expression “is satisfied” and such requirement has to be met in the reasons recorded by the AO before re-opening an assessment. However according to Ld. AR, the reasons recorded in the instant case does not satisfy the requisite con…

Shree Prakash Chhawachharia (HUF), Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-36(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1622/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2021AY 2011-12
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

…t in mind belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. It has to be kept in mind 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 that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ganga Saran & Sons P. Ltd. Vs. ITO (1981) 130 ITR 1 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 SC) held that the expression "reason to believe" occurring in sec. 147 "is stronger" th…