Karnataka in Kothari Metals v. ITO

377 ITR 581High Court2015#2511 most cited

What is Karnataka in Kothari Metals v. ITO authority for?

The non-furnishing of reasons for reopening a concluded assessment vitiates reassessment proceedings, especially when the assessee requests them. Furthermore, if a reassessment relies on a third-party statement, it must be provided to the assessee for proper explanation.

46

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Kothari Metals · ITO · 377 ITR 581 · Karnataka High Court · reassessment procedure · reasons for reopening assessment · furnishing third party statement · Section 148 · Section 153A · Section 153C · Section 132(4) statement · natural justice

Sections most often in play

Section 132(4)Section 69Section 153CSection 115BBESection 153ASection 271AABSection 28Section 69B

Issues it is cited on

voluntary admissionarbitrary and capriciousthird party informationsection 132(1)(a)section 158b(b)section 13(1)(c)(ii)section 158bb(1)illegal paymentabatement of assessmentsection 194iasection 158bdstatement under section 132(4)

Judgments citing Karnataka in Kothari Metals v. ITO

M/S Hastimal Kishore Kumar Solanki, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-5(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 456/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadavassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri B R Sudheendra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234C

…thereafter the AO has to dispose of that objections before proceeding on merits for completing the assessment. 4. The ld. Counsel for the assessee further invited our attention to the judgment of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Kothari Metals v. ITO 377 ITR 581 (Kar) in which the Hon’ble High Court has categorically held that where reasons for reopening were not furnished to the assessee Page 5 of 6 despite requests, the assessment was not valid. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble High Court is extracted hereunder for the sake of reference:- “6. The question of non-furnishing the reasons for re-…

Income Tax Officer vs. Jayprakash Prabhakaran Nair, Nashik

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2729/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Appellant: Dr. Vivek AggarwalFor Respondent: Shri Sanket Joshi
Section 143(3)

…sessment, the reassessment order cannot be upheld. Further the special leave petition filed by the Revenue against the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court has been dismissed by the apex court, vide order dated 16- 07-2007. iii) Kothari Metals Vs. ITO (2015) 377 ITR 581 (Kar) : In this case it has been laid down that when reasons for reopening assessment had not been furnished to assessee, though request for the same had been made, proceedings for reassessment could not have been taken further. In view of the above facts of the case and the ratio laid down by the above mentioned decisions and also decisions rel…

M/S T.V. Venkataswamy & Co, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1374/BANG/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Dec 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri A.K.Garodia, Am (Smc)

For Appellant: Ms. Preethi Patil, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kamaladhar, Advocate
Section 147Section 185

…Shaft (Ind.) Ltd. as reported in 259 ITR 19. She further submitted that under these facts, the re-assessment order framed by the AO is to be quashed as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of M/s Kothari Metals Vs ITO 377 ITR 581(Kar.). Regarding the issue on merit, she reiterated the same contentions which were raised before the ld. CIT(A). 4. The ld. DR of the revenue supported the orders of the authorities below. 5. I have considered the rival submissions. First, I decide the validity of the re-assessment proceedings because, if it is found that the re- assessmen…

T.N.Sekar, L/H Late T.S.Narasimhan, Salem vs. ITO, Salem

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 68/CHNY/2015[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jul 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.66 & 68/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2002-03 & 2001-02

For Respondent: Sh. P. Radhakrishnan, JCIT
Section 147Section 148

…on Act, the reason for reopening the assessment was not furnished to the assessee. Since the Assessing Officer has not furnished the reasons, the reopening is invalid. Placing reliance on the judgment of Karnataka High Court in Kothari Metals v. ITO (2015) 377 ITR 581, the Ld. representative submitted that non- furnishing of reasons for reopening of assessment would render the entire assessment invalid. The Ld. representative has also placed reliance on the decision of Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in CIT v. Trend Electronics (2015) 61 Taxmann.com 308. Placing reliance on the decision of this Bench of the T…

T.N.Sekar, Salem vs. ITO, Salem

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 67/CHNY/2015[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jul 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.66 & 68/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2002-03 & 2001-02

For Respondent: Sh. P. Radhakrishnan, JCIT
Section 147Section 148

…on Act, the reason for reopening the assessment was not furnished to the assessee. Since the Assessing Officer has not furnished the reasons, the reopening is invalid. Placing reliance on the judgment of Karnataka High Court in Kothari Metals v. ITO (2015) 377 ITR 581, the Ld. representative submitted that non- furnishing of reasons for reopening of assessment would render the entire assessment invalid. The Ld. representative has also placed reliance on the decision of Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in CIT v. Trend Electronics (2015) 61 Taxmann.com 308. Placing reliance on the decision of this Bench of the T…

T.N.Sekar, L/H Late S.S.Narasimhan, Salem vs. ITO, Salem

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 66/CHNY/2015[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jul 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.66 & 68/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2002-03 & 2001-02

For Respondent: Sh. P. Radhakrishnan, JCIT
Section 147Section 148

…on Act, the reason for reopening the assessment was not furnished to the assessee. Since the Assessing Officer has not furnished the reasons, the reopening is invalid. Placing reliance on the judgment of Karnataka High Court in Kothari Metals v. ITO (2015) 377 ITR 581, the Ld. representative submitted that non- furnishing of reasons for reopening of assessment would render the entire assessment invalid. The Ld. representative has also placed reliance on the decision of Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in CIT v. Trend Electronics (2015) 61 Taxmann.com 308. Placing reliance on the decision of this Bench of the T…