RAMOTAR SINGH HUF,REWARI vs. ITO, WARD- 2, REWARI
In the result, the appeal filed by the assesee is allowed
ITA 3933/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2020AY 2012-13
Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2012-13 Ramotar Singh, Huf, Vs Ito, Rewari Ward-2, C/O Naresh Singh Chauhan, Advocate, Rewari. 1035-P, Sector-3, Part Ii, Near Ganeshi Lal Dharmshala, Rewari, Haryana. Pan: Aashr5279J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate. Revenue By : Ms Rakhi Vimal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am:
For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(14)Section 45
…Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company Ltd. vs. CIT, 308 ITR 38; the decisions of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Duli Chand Singhania vs. ACIT, 269 ITR 192; in the case of Mahavir Spinning Mills Ltd. vs. CIT, 270 ITR 290; Winsome Textile Industries Ltd. vs. UOI, 278 ITR 470 and various other decisions, he submitted that when the original assessment was completed u/s 143(3), reopening of the assessment u/s 147/148 of the Act beyond a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year is not permissible since there is no allegation by the AO of any f…