ITO v. Purushottam Das Bangur

224 ITR 362Supreme Court of India1997#1261 most cited

What is ITO v. Purushottam Das Bangur authority for?

Information received from the investigation wing constitutes valid 'reason to believe' for initiating reassessment proceedings under Sections 147/148, provided the Assessing Officer applies their mind to the material and does not act mechanically. Prompt issuance of a notice based on such information does not automatically imply a lack of due diligence or borrowed satisfaction.

90

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

ITO v. Purushottam Das Bangur · 224 ITR 362 · Section 147 · Section 148 · reason to believe · escapement of income · information from investigation wing · borrowed satisfaction · application of mind · validity of reassessment · reopening assessment

Also reported as

90 Taxmann 641

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 143(3)Section 144Section 142(1)Section 263Section 69ASection 131(1A)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 46asection 147(a)section 147(1)section 147(b)section 129full and true disclosuresection 131(1a)live linkprincipal officersanctioning authorityborrowed satisfactionmaterial facts necessary for assessment

Judgments citing ITO v. Purushottam Das Bangur

Omvir Singh, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward- 2(1), Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 7437/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Assessment Year: 2009-10]

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148

…the aggregate works out to Rs. 78 lakhs. 8. Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue, relied on the decisions in Income-Tax Officer v. Selected Dalurband Coal Co. Pvt. Ltd. (1996) 217 ITR 597 and ITO v. Purushottam Das Bangur (1997) 224 ITR 362 to urge that at the stage of reopening of the assessment, the AO is not expected to undertake any detailed inquiry; it was sufficient if on the basis of the information received he was prima facie satisfied that a case was made out for reopening the assessment as income had escaped assessment. 9. However, in neither of the above cases are the fa…

Shree Shankar Sarees, Mumbai vs. ITO 18 (3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 2751/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Mr. Bhupendra Shah, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Vidisha Kalra, DR
Section 132Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…modation entries of unsecured loans from Praveen Kumar Jain group and the information came to the knowledge of the AO only after the original assessment order was passed in this case. Reliance was placed on the decision in ITO v. Purushottam Das Bangur (1997) 224 ITR 362 (SC) and M/s. Phool Chand Bajrang Lal and Anr. v. Income Tax Officer and Anr., (1993) 203 ITR 456 (SC). ITA 2750 & 2751/MUM/2019/A.Y.2008-09 & 2009-10 SHREE SHANKAR SAREES 4 Thus, the ld. DR supports the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) on the above ground of appeal. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material avail…

Shree Shankar Sarees, Mumbai vs. ITO 18 (3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 2750/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Mr. Bhupendra Shah, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Vidisha Kalra, DR
Section 132Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…modation entries of unsecured loans from Praveen Kumar Jain group and the information came to the knowledge of the AO only after the original assessment order was passed in this case. Reliance was placed on the decision in ITO v. Purushottam Das Bangur (1997) 224 ITR 362 (SC) and M/s. Phool Chand Bajrang Lal and Anr. v. Income Tax Officer and Anr., (1993) 203 ITR 456 (SC). ITA 2750 & 2751/MUM/2019/A.Y.2008-09 & 2009-10 SHREE SHANKAR SAREES 4 Thus, the ld. DR supports the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) on the above ground of appeal. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material avail…

M/S. Hillman Properties Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee dismissed

ITA 6530/DEL/2014[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2019AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. D.R
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148

…k Brokers Pvt. Ltd., 291 ITR 500 in which similarly reopening was held to be valid where return was only processed under section 143(1)(a) of the I.T. Act. The Ld. CIT(A) also relied upon Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Purushottam Das Bangur 224 ITR 362 (SC) wherein it was held that “based on information received from investigation wing, the Assessing Officer can without any further investigation form the belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment.” In the present case, the information received by the Assessing Officer from investigation wing was specific that accommodation entr…

Brijbasi Education and Welfarew Society, Mathura vs. Addl.CIT, Range-1, Ghaziabad

In the result ITA number 4573/del/2017 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2007 – 08 is dismissed

ITA 4573/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhary, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 12Section 143Section 148Section 161Section 68Section 80

…to tax has escaped assessment in original assessment proceedings due to oversight, inadvertent, mistake or any other external source of information, reassessment proceedings can be initiated. Reliance is placed on ITO vs. Pusrhottamdas bangur vs another (SC) 224 ITR 362, ITO vs selected Dalrband coal company private limited (SC) 217 ITR 597, Elphonsten picture palace vs Union of India and others (Pat ) 74 ITR 115, H A Nanji and Co vs ITO (Cal) 120 ITR 174, Rattan Gupta vs CIT (Punjab and Haryana) 234 ITR 220 and ITO vs Gurinder Kaur (ITAT, Del,) 102 ITD 189. 5.1.2 Appellant has challenged the proceedings technic…

DCIT, Central Cir-8(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Amazon Metals Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is also dismissed

ITA 905/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negidcit, Cc-8(4) Vs. M/S Acro Exports Trade Room No. 658, 6Th Floor Pvt.Ltd. 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Mumbai-400 020 37-40 Subash Road Vile Parle(E) Mumbai-400 057

Section 131Section 147Section 148

…nal assessment proceedings. Hence, there is no question of change of opinion, as has been held in the following judgments: 1. Kalyanji Mavji& Co. vs. CIT 102 ITR 287 (SC) 2. Esskay Engineering P. Ltd. vs. CIT 247 ITR 818 3. ITO v Purushottam Das Bangur & Anr. 224 ITR 362 (SC) 8.13 In Writ Petition. No. 9036 of 2007, Honda SielPower Products Ltd. vs DyClT&Anr. Decision dt. 14th Feb. 2011 reported in (2011) 52 DTR (Del) 353 - Ed.), it was held as under:- "10 The term 'failure' on the pan of the assessee is not restricted only to the IT return and the columns of the IT return or the tax 12 ITA.No’s 903 & 905/Mum/…

Dcie Central Circle-8(4), Mumbai vs. M/S.Pali Fabrics Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 904/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negidcit, Cc-8(4) Vs. M/S Pali Fabrics Pvt.Ltd. Room No. 658, 6Th Floor 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road 37-40 Subash Road Mumbai-400 020 Vile Parle(E) Mumbai-400 057 Pan/Gir No.Aafcp0089G (Appellant) .. Respondent) & C.O. No. 77/Mum/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.904/Mum/2018) (Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S Pali Fabrics Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Cc-8(4) 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, Room No. 658, 6Th Floor 37-40 Subash Road Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Vile Parle(E) Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 057 Pan/Gir No.Aafcp0089G (Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 131Section 139Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…nal assessment proceedings. Hence, there is no question of change of opinion, as has been held in the following judgments: 1. Kalyanji Mavji& Co. vs. CIT 102 ITR 287 (SC) 2. Esskay Engineering P. Ltd. vs. CIT 247 ITR 818 3. ITO v Purushottam Das Bangur & Anr. 224 ITR 362 (SC) 8.13 In Writ Petition. No. 9036 of 2007, Honda SielPower Products Ltd. vs DyClT&Anr. Decision dt. 14th Feb. 2011 reported in (2011) 52 DTR (Del) 353 - Ed.), it was held as under:- "10 The term 'failure' on the pan of the assessee is not restricted only to the IT return and the columns of the IT return or the tax audit report. This is the f…

DCIT Central Cir-8(4), Mumbai vs. M/S.Acro Exports Trade Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is also dismissed

ITA 903/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negidcit, Cc-8(4) Vs. M/S Acro Exports Trade Room No. 658, 6Th Floor Pvt.Ltd. 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Mumbai-400 020 37-40 Subash Road Vile Parle(E) Mumbai-400 057

Section 131Section 147Section 148

…nal assessment proceedings. Hence, there is no question of change of opinion, as has been held in the following judgments: 1. Kalyanji Mavji& Co. vs. CIT 102 ITR 287 (SC) 2. Esskay Engineering P. Ltd. vs. CIT 247 ITR 818 3. ITO v Purushottam Das Bangur & Anr. 224 ITR 362 (SC) 8.13 In Writ Petition. No. 9036 of 2007, Honda SielPower Products Ltd. vs DyClT&Anr. Decision dt. 14th Feb. 2011 reported in (2011) 52 DTR (Del) 353 - Ed.), it was held as under:- "10 The term 'failure' on the pan of the assessee is not restricted only to the IT return and the columns of the IT return or the tax 12 ITA.No’s 903 & 905/Mum/…

Brijbasi Education and Welfarew Society, Mathura vs. Addl.CIT, Range-1, Ghaziabad

In the result ITA number 4573/del/2017 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2007 – 08 is dismissed

ITA 4572/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhary, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 12Section 143Section 148Section 161Section 68Section 80

…to tax has escaped assessment in original assessment proceedings due to oversight, inadvertent, mistake or any other external source of information, reassessment proceedings can be initiated. Reliance is placed on ITO vs. Pusrhottamdas bangur vs another (SC) 224 ITR 362, ITO vs selected Dalrband coal company private limited (SC) 217 ITR 597, Elphonsten picture palace vs Union of India and others (Pat ) 74 ITR 115, H A Nanji and Co vs ITO (Cal) 120 ITR 174, Rattan Gupta vs CIT (Punjab and Haryana) 234 ITR 220 and ITO vs Gurinder Kaur (ITAT, Del,) 102 ITD 189. 5.1.2 Appellant has challenged the proceedings technic…

Time Media & Entertainment LLP (Earlier Time Media & Entertainment Private Limited), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 16(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 6534/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6534/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Time Media & Income Tax Officer- Entertainment Llp (Earlier 16(1)(5) Time Media & R.No. 439, 4 Th Floor, V. Entertainment Private Aayakar Bhavan, Ltd.) M.K Marg, 104, Rachna, V.P Road, Mumbai-400020 Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400056 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaact1581C (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Reepal G. Tralshawala Revenue By: Shri. D.G. Pansari (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 28.03.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.06.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 6534/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 31.07.2017, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”) In Appeal No. Cit(A)-4/It-89/Ito-16(1)(5)/2016-17, For Assessment Year 2010-11, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 30.03.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2010-11. I.T.A. No.6534/Mum/2017

For Appellant: Shri. Reepal G. TralshawalaFor Respondent: Shri. D.G. Pansari (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “E” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6534/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Time Media & Income Tax Officer- Entertainment LLP (Earlier 16(1)(5) Time Media & R.No. 439, 4 th Floor, v. Entertainment Private Aayakar Bhavan, Ltd.) M.K Marg, 104, Rachna, V.P Road, Mumbai-400020 Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400056 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN: AAACT1581C (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee by: Shri. Reepal G. Tralshawal…

M/S M.S. Associates, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, New Delhi

ITA 4364/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi & Shri SatyajeetFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr.D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 44A

…elhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nova Promoters & Finlease (P) Ltd., reported in (2012) 342 ITR 169 (Del.). He further relied upon three judgments, (i) Phool Chand Bajrang Lal vs. ITO, (1993) 203 ITR 456 (SC), (ii) ITO vs. Purushottam Das Bangur, (1997) 224 ITR 362 (iii) Sonia Gandhi vs. ACIT, (2018) 257 Taxman 515 (Del). I.T.A. No.4364/DEL/2015 10 9. In rejoinder, learned counsel submitted that here in this case Assessing Officer has referred to statement of 2006, whereas the ld. CIT (A) is referring to some different statement of Shri S.K. Gupta. Here the main issue is of applicability of proviso to Sec…

Sumati Kumar Lunia, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 36(4), Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 457/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm] I.T.A No. 457/Kol/2018 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Sumati Kumar Lunia Vs. I.T.O Ward 36(4), Kolkata Pan: Aavpl 7736 M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri C.J. Singh, JCIT, ld. Sr.DR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148

…ct that for earlier assessment years issue in dispute has been decided by CIT(A) in assessee's favour cannot be a fetter in exercising his jurisdiction u/s 147. 7. Moreover, it is to be observed that the case of ITO vs. Purushottam Das Bangur and and Another, 224 ITR 362 (Se) has settled the law on this issue that at the time of . initiation of the proceedings u/s. 147, the Ld. AO should have the material relevant to the assessee. In my considered view of the matter, the information received from the Investigation Wing is also material if it contains the information regarding the assessee. The Ld.AO, at the time…

M/S Kunal Calcium Limited, Yamunanagar vs. DCIT, Yamunanagar

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 412/CHANDI/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Feb 2019AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Rohit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ankur Alya, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 148Section 250(6)

….2009-10 assessment and therefore notice issued by AO under Section 148 was valid. Reliance in this regard is also placed on the following case laws:- i) Srinivasa Khandasari Udyog Vs. ITO (ITAT, Bang) 56 ITD 146. ii ITO Vs. Purushotam Das Bangur & Anr. (SC) 224 ITR 362 iii) Elphinstone Picture Palace Vs. Union of India & Anr (Pat) 74 ITR 115 iv) H.A. Nanji & Co.Vs. ITO (Cai) 120 ITR 593 v) Sohan Singh Vs. CIT (Del) 158 ITR 174 vi) Rattan Gupta Vs. CIT (P&H) 234 ITR 220” 7 . W e h a v e h e a r d t h e r i v a l c o n t e n t i o n s c a r e f u l l y a n d p e r u s e d t h e o r d e r s o f t h e a u t h o r…

Avnindra Mishra, Mathura vs. ITO-1(3)(1), Mathura

The appeal is allowed

ITA 441/AGR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra05 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

Section 148Section 151

…nts vs. CIT’, Writ Tax No. 1402 of 2004 iv. (All. H.C.) ‘Sushrut Institute of Plastic Surgery vs. Dy. CIT’, Misc. Bench v. No 219 of 2014 (All. H.C.) ‘Sanjay DCIT’, vi. Kumar Agarwal, HUF vs. ITA No.290/Agra/2010 (ITAT-Agra). ‘ITO vs. Purushottam Das Bangur’, 224 ITR 362 (SC). vii. viii. ‘Anil Kumar Singhal vs. ITO’, 33 taxman. Com 434 (Agra Trib.) (SMC Bench). I.T.A No. 441/Agra/2017 5 ‘Abdul Majid vs. CIT’, 281 ITR 366 (All). ix. 7. Heard. The approval has been granted by observing thus: “Yes” 8. Question is whether this approval is in accordance with law. 9. The matter in dispute is directly covered by…

Anita Yadav, Mathura vs. ITO -1(3)(1), Mathura

The appeal is allowed

ITA 422/AGR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

Section 148Section 151

…nts vs. CIT’, Writ Tax No. 1402 of 2004 iv. (All. H.C.) ‘Sushrut Institute of Plastic Surgery vs. Dy. CIT’, Misc. Bench v. No 219 of 2014 (All. H.C.) ‘Sanjay DCIT’, vi. Kumar Agarwal, HUF vs. ITA No.290/Agra/2010 (ITAT-Agra). ‘ITO vs. Purushottam Das Bangur’, 224 ITR 362 (SC). vii. viii. ‘Anil Kumar Singhal vs. ITO’, 33 taxman. Com 434 (Agra Trib.) (SMC Bench). ‘Abdul Majid vs. CIT’, 281 ITR 366 (All). ix. I.T.A No. 422/Agra/2017 5 7. Heard. The approval has been granted by observing thus: “Yes” 8. Question is whether this approval is in accordance with law. 9. The matter in dispute is directly covered by m…

Bijendra Kumar, Mathura vs. ITO-1(3)(1), Mathura

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 409/AGR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra03 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

Section 147Section 148Section 151

…nts vs. CIT’, Writ Tax No. 1402 of 2004 iv. (All. H.C.) ‘Sushrut Institute of Plastic Surgery vs. Dy. CIT’, Misc. Bench v. No 219 of 2014 (All. H.C.) ‘Sanjay DCIT’, vi. Kumar Agarwal, HUF vs. ITA No.290/Agra/2010 (ITAT-Agra). ‘ITO vs. Purushottam Das Bangur’, 224 ITR 362 (SC). vii. viii. ‘Anil Kumar Singhal vs. ITO’, 33 taxman. Com 434 (Agra Trib.) (SMC Bench). ‘Abdul Majid vs. CIT’, 281 ITR 366 (All). ix. 7. Heard. The approval has been granted by observing thus: “Yes” 8. Question is whether this approval is in accordance with law. 9. The matter in dispute is directly covered by my decision in ITA No. 238/Ag…

DCIT 15(1)(1), Mumbai vs. A.J. Buildcon P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be partly allowed

ITA 6204/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6204/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) The Dy. Cit 15(1)(1), बिधम/ M/S. A. J. Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai Room No. 470, 4Th 514, Marathon Max, Opp, Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Nirmal Life Style, Lbs Maharshi Karve Road, Road, Mulund (W), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400080. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagca6548Q (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri M. V. Rajguru (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Dr. P. Daniel सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01.06.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29.06.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 22.07.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -24, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009- 10. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. "On The Farts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Taw, The Ld. C1T(A) Erred Directing The Assessing Officer To Delete The Entire Disallowance Of Rs.67,99Hl3Q/-Mad Account Of Alleged Bogus Purchases, Without Appreciating The Fact That The Said Seller Pa Were Found To Be Hawala Operators/ Bogus Billers?, As Per Findings Given By (He Sales A.Y.2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Dr. P. DanielFor Respondent: Shri M. V. Rajguru (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 40A

…e of original assessment proceedings. Hence, there is no question of change of opinion as held in the following judgments. 1. Kalyanji Mavji & Co. vs. CJT 102 JTR 287 (SC) 2. Esskay Engineering P. Ltd, vs, CIT247ITRB18 3. ITO vs, Purushottam Das Bangur & Anr. 224 ITR 362 (SC) In the light of the above discussion, the contention of the assessee that the present case is of change of opinion has to be rejected. 2.4.18 The second question arises for consideration is whether the appellant had made full and true disclosure of material facts. I have already reproduced above the contentions of the appellant in this regar…

Manmal Metal Syndicate, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years

ITA 1864/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Chhajed (AR)For Respondent: Ms. N. Hemalatha (DR)
Section 133Section 143Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C. SHARMA (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s Manmal Metal Syndicate, The Income Tax Officer-19(2)(3), Shop No. 18, Balkrishna Niwas, Matru Mandir Bldg., R. No. 218, 54, 3rd Panjrapole Lane, 2nd Floor, Tardeo, Mumbai - 400004 Vs. Mumbai - 400004 PAN: AAPFM3218B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Piyush Chhajed (AR) Revenue by : Ms. N. Hemalatha (DR) Date of Hearing: 05/06/2018 Date of Pronouncement: 20/06/2018 O R D E R PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM These appeals have been filed…

Ghanshyam, Mathura vs. ITO 3(2), Mathura

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 238/AGR/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

Section 147Section 148Section 151

….) I.T.A No. 238/Agra/2018 5 & I.T.A No. 129/Agra/2018 ‘Sushrut Institute of Plastic Surgery vs. Dy. CIT’, Misc. Bench v. No 219 of 2014 (All. H.C.) ‘Sanjay DCIT’, vi. Kumar Agarwal, HUF vs. ITA No.290/Agra/2010 (ITAT-Agra). ‘ITO vs. Purushottam Das Bangur’, 224 ITR 362 (SC). vii. viii. ‘Anil Kumar Singhal vs. ITO’, 33 taxman. Com 434 (Agra Trib.) (SMC Bench). ‘Abdul Majid vs. CIT’, 281 ITR 366 (All). ix. 7. Heard. In the above quoted approval granted by the Additional CIT, the approval has been granted by observing thus: “Ji Haan Main Santusht Hoon.” Translated, this approval states: ‘Yes, I am satisfied’. Q…

Ghanshyam, Mathura vs. ITO 3(2), Mathura

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 129/AGR/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

Section 147Section 148Section 151

….) I.T.A No. 238/Agra/2018 5 & I.T.A No. 129/Agra/2018 ‘Sushrut Institute of Plastic Surgery vs. Dy. CIT’, Misc. Bench v. No 219 of 2014 (All. H.C.) ‘Sanjay DCIT’, vi. Kumar Agarwal, HUF vs. ITA No.290/Agra/2010 (ITAT-Agra). ‘ITO vs. Purushottam Das Bangur’, 224 ITR 362 (SC). vii. viii. ‘Anil Kumar Singhal vs. ITO’, 33 taxman. Com 434 (Agra Trib.) (SMC Bench). ‘Abdul Majid vs. CIT’, 281 ITR 366 (All). ix. 7. Heard. In the above quoted approval granted by the Additional CIT, the approval has been granted by observing thus: “Ji Haan Main Santusht Hoon.” Translated, this approval states: ‘Yes, I am satisfied’. Q…