Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar

268 ITR 332High Court2004#77 most cited

What is Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar authority for?

The validity of reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147, by issuing a notice under Section 148, must be judged solely on the reasons originally recorded by the Assessing Officer. These recorded reasons cannot be supplemented, improved upon, or modified at any later stage.

695

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Hindustan Lever Ltd v R.B. Wadkar · Section 147 · Section 148 · reasons recorded · reassessment validity · improving reasons · beyond four years · mere change of opinion · escapement of income · first proviso section 147

Also reported as

137 Taxmann 479

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 153ASection 132Section 153DSection 68

Issues it is cited on

section 158bdfirst proviso to section 147material facts necessary for assessmentincome tax settlement commissionfull and true disclosuresection 144afresh tangible materialkelvinatorbeyond four yearsmere change of opinionescapement of incomelive link

Judgments citing Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar

M/S Edelweiss Rural & Corporate Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. JCIT Central Circle-1(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 1041/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2015-16
Section 127(2)Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

…jurisdiction of Section 147 of the Act for the ld. AO is to be tested based on reasons recorded by the ld. AO. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd., vs. ACIT reported in 268 ITR 332 (Bom). The relevant operative portion of the said decision is as under:- “20. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer nowhere state that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment of that assessment year. It is needless to mention that the reasons are required t…

M/S Edelweiss Rural & Corporate Services Private Limited (Earlier Know As M/S Edelweiss Commodities Services Limited), Mumbai vs. ACIT Central Circle-1(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 1040/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2012-13
Section 127(2)Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

…jurisdiction of Section 147 of the Act for the ld. AO is to be tested based on reasons recorded by the ld. AO. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd., vs. ACIT reported in 268 ITR 332 (Bom). The relevant operative portion of the said decision is as under:- “20. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer nowhere state that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment of that assessment year. It is needless to mention that the reasons are required t…

Sharad Vithoba Navale, Solapur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle -2 (2), Pune

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 266/PUN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Godarashri Dadasaheb Vithoba Navale Dcit, Central Circle 2(2) At Post Ekhatpur Pune Vs. Taluka - Sangola Distt. Solapur 413307 Pan –Abppn6740E Appellant Respondent Shri Sharad Vithoba Navale Dcit, Central Circle 2(2) At Post Ekhatpur Pune Vs. Taluka - Sangola Distt. Solapur 413307 Pan –Abppn6740E Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Suhas Bora Respondent By: Shri M.G. Jasnani Date Of Hearing: 28.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.08.2022 O R D E R Per S.S. Godara, Jm These Twin Assessees’ As Many Appeals For Assessment Year 2012-13, Arise Against The Cit(A)-12, Pune’S Separate Orders; Both Dated 30.11.2018, Passed In Case Nos. No. Pn/Cit (A)-12/10778/2016-17 & No. Pn/Cit (A)- 12/10800/2016-17, Respectively Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short “The Act”.

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148

…concurred with as held in Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2017) 395 ITR 677 and PCIT Vs. RMG Polyvinyl Ltd. (2017) 83 taxmann.com 348 (Del.) This is coupled with the hon’ble jurisdictional landmark decision in Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. R.B. Wadkar (2004) 268 ITR 332 held long back that the reopening reasons have to be read on standalone basis without any scope of addition, deletion or substitution therein even if supportive material emerges at a later stage. 4. Mr. Desai sought to buttress the point that these assesses’ have been found to have made cash deposits in their respective bank accounts. I find no s…

Dadasaheb Vithoba Navale, Solapur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle -2 (2), Pune

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 255/PUN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Godarashri Dadasaheb Vithoba Navale Dcit, Central Circle 2(2) At Post Ekhatpur Pune Vs. Taluka - Sangola Distt. Solapur 413307 Pan –Abppn6740E Appellant Respondent Shri Sharad Vithoba Navale Dcit, Central Circle 2(2) At Post Ekhatpur Pune Vs. Taluka - Sangola Distt. Solapur 413307 Pan –Abppn6740E Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Suhas Bora Respondent By: Shri M.G. Jasnani Date Of Hearing: 28.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.08.2022 O R D E R Per S.S. Godara, Jm These Twin Assessees’ As Many Appeals For Assessment Year 2012-13, Arise Against The Cit(A)-12, Pune’S Separate Orders; Both Dated 30.11.2018, Passed In Case Nos. No. Pn/Cit (A)-12/10778/2016-17 & No. Pn/Cit (A)- 12/10800/2016-17, Respectively Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short “The Act”.

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148

…concurred with as held in Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2017) 395 ITR 677 and PCIT Vs. RMG Polyvinyl Ltd. (2017) 83 taxmann.com 348 (Del.) This is coupled with the hon’ble jurisdictional landmark decision in Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. R.B. Wadkar (2004) 268 ITR 332 held long back that the reopening reasons have to be read on standalone basis without any scope of addition, deletion or substitution therein even if supportive material emerges at a later stage. 4. Mr. Desai sought to buttress the point that these assesses’ have been found to have made cash deposits in their respective bank accounts. I find no s…

M/S. Allabaksha Mehboob Mulla, Sangli vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 2 (1), Sangli

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1765/PUN/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S. Godaram/S. Allabaksha Mehboob Mulla The Income Tax Officer - 2(1) Guruwar Peth Opp. Biranale Pharmacy Vs. Battis Shirala College, Vishrambag Dist. Sangli 415408 Sangli 416416 Pan –Aacfa4723A Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Kishor B. Phadke Respondent By: Shri M.G. Jasnani Date Of Hearing: 28.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.08.2022 O R D E R Per S.S. Godara, Jm This Assessee’S Appeal For Ay 2009-10 Arises Against The Cit(A) 1, Kolhapur’S Order Dated 02.07.2019 Passed In Case No. Sli/10021/2016-17, Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The Act).

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2

…fully” and “truly” disclosing all the relevant particulars. Faced with this situation, I quote section 2 M/s. Allabaksha Mehboob Mulla 147 (1st proviso) and hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s landmark decision in Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. R. B. Wadkar (2004) 268 ITR 332 (Bombay) to quash the impugned reopening for this precise reason alone. Ordered accordingly. 4. All other pleadings on merits stand rendered academic. 5. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 25th August, 2022. (S.S. Godara) Judicial Member Pune, Dated: 25th August, 2022 Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respo…

M/S Kamat Real Estate Developers, Panaji vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Panaji.

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 336/PAN/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji17 Aug 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Sh Sandip Bhandare, C.AFor Respondent: Sh Mayur Kamble, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…risdictional Bombay High Court in the below mentioned decisions squarely apply to the present case of the firm which is reopened by A.O. after expiry of four years from the end of the assessment year under consideration. 1. Hindustan Lever Ltd V. R.B. Wadkar 268 ITR 339 2. Grindwell Norton Ltd. V. Jagdish Prasad Jangid, Asst. CIT 267 ITR 673. 3. IPCA Laboratories Ltd. V. Gajanand Meena, Dy. CIT 251 ITR 416 15 ITA.No.336/PAN./2018 M/s. Kamat Real Estate Developers, Panaji, Goa. 4.4. The Learned A.R. thus, submitted that according to above judgments the reopening of the assessment beyond four years from the end…

Prince Gold & Diamonds India P Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), Chennai

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

ITA 428/CHNY/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.427 & 428/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 M/S. Prince Gold & Diamonds India Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of P. Ltd., 3, Nana Street, T. Nagar, Income Tax, Chennai 600 017. Central Circle 1(4), Chennai. [Pan: Aaecp1891R] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D. Palanivel, Advocate Department By : Ms. L. Jancy Elizabeth Rani, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 28.06.2022 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 18, Chennai, Both Dated 31.08.2021 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13. Besides Challenging Reopening Of Assessment Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act”], The Assessee Has Also Disputed The Confirmation Of Disallowance Of Purchase On Merits In Both The Assessment Years Under Consideration.

For Appellant: Shri D. Palanivel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. L. Jancy Elizabeth Rani, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ary for assessment for that assessment year. Hence, the Assessing officer had no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment proceedings. The notice was not valid and was liable to be quashed.” Similarly, in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar, ACIT (2) 268 ITR 332, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held as under: “Held, that it was clear that the Revenue could not establish any lapse or failure on the part of the assessee-petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material necessary for the assessment of the petitioner for the assessment year in question. The notice was not valid and was liable to be quash…

Prince Gold & Diamonds India P Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), Chennai

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

ITA 427/CHNY/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.427 & 428/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 M/S. Prince Gold & Diamonds India Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of P. Ltd., 3, Nana Street, T. Nagar, Income Tax, Chennai 600 017. Central Circle 1(4), Chennai. [Pan: Aaecp1891R] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D. Palanivel, Advocate Department By : Ms. L. Jancy Elizabeth Rani, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 28.06.2022 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 18, Chennai, Both Dated 31.08.2021 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13. Besides Challenging Reopening Of Assessment Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act”], The Assessee Has Also Disputed The Confirmation Of Disallowance Of Purchase On Merits In Both The Assessment Years Under Consideration.

For Appellant: Shri D. Palanivel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. L. Jancy Elizabeth Rani, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ary for assessment for that assessment year. Hence, the Assessing officer had no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment proceedings. The notice was not valid and was liable to be quashed.” Similarly, in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar, ACIT (2) 268 ITR 332, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held as under: “Held, that it was clear that the Revenue could not establish any lapse or failure on the part of the assessee-petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material necessary for the assessment of the petitioner for the assessment year in question. The notice was not valid and was liable to be quash…

ACIT Non Corporate Circle 7(1), Chennai vs. P.Janakiraman, Chennai

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

ITA 2079/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2079/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Shri P. Janakiraman, Income Tax, New No. 2, Old No. 3, R-Block, Plot No. 3822, 6Th Avenue, Non Corporate Circle 7(1), 121, M.G. Road, Chennai 600 034. Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 040. [Pan:Aajpj1327J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Sajit Kumar, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 7, Chennai, Dated 23.06.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2008-09 Quashing The Reassessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri Sajit Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40

…ary for assessment for that assessment year. Hence, the Assessing officer had no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment proceedings. The notice was not valid and was liable to be quashed.” Similarly, in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar, ACIT (2) 268 ITR 332, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held as under: “Held, that it was clear that the Revenue could not establish any lapse or failure on the part of the assessee-petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material necessary for the assessment of the petitioner for the assessment year in question. The notice was not valid and was liable to be quash…

ACIT, Chennai vs. B.V.Reddy Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 3293/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3293/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. B.V. Reddy Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New No. 21/Old No. 10A, 1St Floor, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(2), Umayal Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 010. [Pan:Aaccn2252L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Arjunraj, Ca For Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.06.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 29.07.2022 : आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai, Dated 28.09.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Facts Are, In Brief, That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2008-09 On 13.09.2008 Disclosing Total Income Of ₹.1,83,53,540/- After Setting Off Of Carry Forward Loss Of ₹.9,67,40,138/-.

For Appellant: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCITFor Respondent: Shri N. Arjunraj, CA for Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14A

…ary for assessment for that assessment year. Hence, the Assessing officer had no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment proceedings. The notice was not valid and was liable to be quashed.” Similarly, in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar, ACIT (2) 268 ITR 332, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held as under: “Held, that it was clear that the Revenue could not establish any lapse or failure on the part of the assessee-petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material necessary for the assessment of the petitioner for the assessment year in question. The notice was not valid and was liable to be quash…

M/S Noble Drugs Ltd, Nashik vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -2, Nashik

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 214/PUN/2020[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jul 2022AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.214/Pun/2020 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S. Noble Drugs Ltd., Plot No. B-22, Midc Ambad, Nashik - 422 010 .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aaacn6198H

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JM AND SHRI DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.214/PUN/2020 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/s. Noble Drugs Ltd., Plot No. B-22, MIDC Ambad, Nashik - 422 010 .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant PAN : AAACN6198H बनधम / V/s. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent ACIT, Circle -1, Pune Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Arvind Desai सपनवधई की तधरऩख / Date of Hearing : 15.06.2022 घोषणध की तधरऩख / Date of Pronouncement : 28.07.2022 आदेश / ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JM : 1. This assessee’s appeal f…

M/S. Paras Plastic Processors, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-27(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5593/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Paras Plastic Processors, Income Tax Officer 806/807, Ajit Nath, Ward-27(2)(5), Nilkantha Enclave, Ajit Nagar, Vs. Vashi, Opp. Shreyash Cinema, Navi Mumbai-400-703. Lbs Marg, Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai-400086. Pan No. Aaefp 8206 H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. M. Subramanian, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Nair, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…cessor 8 assessment is void ab intio void ab intio. The Ld. counsel referred red to the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd Hindustan Lever Ltd versus ACIT and others reported in 268 ITR 332 (Bom) versus ACIT and others reported in 268 ITR 332 (Bom) versus ACIT and others reported in 268 ITR 332 (Bom). He further referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT Vs Shodiman investment Private Limit PCIT…

Shri Naresh Kumar Yadav, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer- 1(5), Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 186/LKW/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Naresh Kumar Yadav V. Ito-1(5) Vill. & Post Madiyaon Lucknow Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aebpy8040D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Prashant Kumar Verma, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12 07 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 26 07 2022 O R D E R This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Lucknow, Dated 11.10.2019, For Assessment Year 2011- 12, Raising The Following Original Grounds Of Appeal: 1. Because, The Whole Assessment Order Impugned In The Present Appeal Stands Wholly Vitiated As There Can Be No Reason To Believe That Income Has Escaped Assessment U/S 147/144 On The Ground Of Mere Cash Deposits In The Bank Account Amounting To Rs.12,98,000/- Therefore, The Entire Assessment Proceedings Are Liable To Be Held As Nullity & Without Jurisdiction. 2. Because, The Assessment Order Impugned In The Present Appeal Stands Wholly Vitiated As There Can Be No Reason To Believe On The Basis Of Air Information That Income Has Escaped Assessment U/S 147/144 On The Ground Of Mere Cash Deposits In Bank Account Amounting Rs.12,98,000/-. Therefore, The Entire Assessment Proceedings Are Liable To Be Held As Nullity & Without Jurisdiction.

For Appellant: Shri Prashant Kumar VermaFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R
Section 147Section 148

…of initiation of the assessment proceedings under section 147 was the information with the Department, of the deposits made by the assessee in his bank account. 48. 'Bir Bahadur Singh Sijwali' (supra), makes reference to 'Hindusan Lever Ltd. vs. R.B. Wadkar', 268 ITR 332 (Bom.), to hold that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment are to be examined on a standalone basis and nothing can be added to the reasons. It was also observed that the reasons must point out to an income escaping assessment and not merely need of an enquiry which may result in detection of an income escaping Page 24 of 27 assess…

Basant Dharmichand Jain, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 373/MUM/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2022AY 2007-08
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘SMC‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Shri Basant Dharmichand Jain Vs. Dy. CIT Central Circle – F-316, Bussa Apartment 1(3), Mumbai 905, 9th Floor, Pratishtha S.V. Road, Nearby Khira Department, Santacruz (W) Bhavan, Old CGO Building Mumbai – 400 054 Annex, M.K.Road Mumbai – 400 020 PAN/GIR No.AAVPJ2045F (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Himanshu Gandhi Revenue by Shri Rajiv Singh Date of Hearing 25/07/2022 Date of Pronouncement 25/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): This appea…

Shri.J M Vrushabendraiah, Hospet vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 299/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Narayana K.R., D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250

…ITA No.299/Bang/2019 Shri J.M. Vrushabendraiah, Hospete IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri J.M. Vrushabendraiah N C Colony Near State Bank of Hyderabad ACIT Circle-1 Vs. Hospete 583 201 Bellary PAN NO : AAWPV6572E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Narayana K.R., D.R. Date of Hearing : 13.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 20.07.2022 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by assessee is directed aga…

Shri Navdeep Sood, Hoshiarpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward- 3, Hoshiarpur

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

ITA 383/ASR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Navdeep Sood, Vs Ito, S/O-Jyoti Bhusan Sood, Ward-3, Jaijon Doaba, Garhshankar, Hoshiarpur. Hoshiarpur, Punjab-144530. Pan-Bozps8638J

Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR “SMC” BENCH: AMRITSAR BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2011-12] Navdeep Sood, vs ITO, S/o-Jyoti Bhusan Sood, Ward-3, Jaijon Doaba, Garhshankar, Hoshiarpur. Hoshiarpur, Punjab-144530. PAN-BOZPS8638J APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri Tarun Bansal, Adv. & Shri Lakshay Bansal, CA Respondent by Shri Manpreet Singh Duggal, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 16.06.2022 Date of Pronouncement 30.06.2022 ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM : This appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2011-12 is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-1, Jalandhar dat…

Rambir Singh, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward 3(5), Hapur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2748/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jun 2022AY 2009-10
Section 133Section 147

…ening the reassessment, are to be examined on a standalone basis. Nothing can be added to the reasons so recorded, nor anything can be deleted from the reasons so recorded. Hon’ble Bombay High Court, in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. R.B. Wadkar [(2004) 268 ITR 332], has, inter alia, observed that "……….It is needless to mention that the reasons are required to be read as they were recorded by the AO. No substitution or deletion is permissible. No additions can be made to those reasons. No inference can be allowed to be drawn on the basis of reasons not recorded. It is for the AO to disclose and open his min…

Sukhdeo Nivrutti Navale, Solapur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle - 2 (2), Pune

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 454/PUN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara

Section 132Section 148

…concurred with as held in Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2017) 395 ITR 677 and PCIT Vs. RMG Polyvinyl Ltd. (2017) 83 taxmann.com 348 (Del.) This is coupled with the hon’ble jurisdictional landmark decision in Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. R.B. Wadkar (2004) 268 ITR 332 held long back that the reopening reasons have to be read on standalone basis without any scope of addition, deletion or substitution therein even if supportive material emerges at a later stage. 4. Mr. Desai sought to buttress the point that these assesses’ have been found to have made cash deposits in their respective bank accounts. I find no…

Vasant Ambadasrao Deshmukh, Basmath vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward & Tps, Hingoli

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 599/PUN/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri M. K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 143(3)Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.599/PUN/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Vasant Ambadasrao Vs. ITO, Ward & TPS, Hingoli. Deshmukh, Near Bodhanan Math, Brahman Galli, Basmath- 431512. PAN : ACTPL6485D Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri M. K. Kulkarni Revenue by : Shri Arvind Desai Date of hearing : 25.05.2022 Date of pronouncement : 31.05.2022 आदेश / ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JM: This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2010-11 arises against the CIT(A)-1, Aurangabad’s order dated 31.12.2018 passed in case…

Sukhdeo Nivrutti Navale, Solapur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle -2 (2), Pune

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 453/PUN/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara

Section 132Section 148

…concurred with as held in Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2017) 395 ITR 677 and PCIT Vs. RMG Polyvinyl Ltd. (2017) 83 taxmann.com 348 (Del.) This is coupled with the hon’ble jurisdictional landmark decision in Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. R.B. Wadkar (2004) 268 ITR 332 held long back that the reopening reasons have to be read on standalone basis without any scope of addition, deletion or substitution therein even if supportive material emerges at a later stage. 4. Mr. Desai sought to buttress the point that these assesses’ have been found to have made cash deposits in their respective bank accounts. I find no…