SMT. MEENAKSHI PRAKASH JADHAV,MUMBAI vs. ITO 21 (2)(3), MUMBAI
Accordingly ground No. 5 raised by the assessee is allowed
ITA 303/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2021AY 2010-11
Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Smt. Meenakshi Prakash Jadhav, Income Tax Officer-21(2)(3), 175, 5Th Floor, 845, Shivneri Vs. Room No. 105, 1St Floor, Piramal Building, B.J. Marg, Byculla West, Chambers Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400011. Mumbai-400012. Pan No. Acspj 3509 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Devendra Jain, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Sanjay J. Sethi, Dr Date Of Hearing : 12/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/10/2021
For Appellant: Mr. Devendra Jain, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Sanjay J. Sethi, DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148
…easons recorded fer reopening assessment under section 147. In this regard we rely on the following decisions: i. ITO v Lakhmani Mewal Dass [1976] 103 ITR 437 (SC); ii. S. P. Agarwalla v ITO [1983] 140 ITR 1010 (Cal); iii. ITO v Dwarka Dass & Brothers [1981] 131 ITR 571 (Del); iv. CIT v SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. [2010] 325 ITR 285 (Del); and v. Signature Hotels P. Ltd. V ITO (2011] 338 ITR 51 (Del). Further, Supreme Court in case of Sheo Nath Singh v Appellate Assistant Commissioner [1971] 82 ITR 147 (SC), held that reopening of assessment can be done on the basis of direct or circumstantial evidence but not on m…