Micro Marbles Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO

457 ITR 569High Court2023#9804 most cited

What is Micro Marbles Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO authority for?

Reassessment proceedings are vitiated if the Assessing Officer fails to provide the assessee with the relevant documents and material forming the basis for initiating such proceedings. This failure, including not supplying statements relied upon, can lead to the quashing of the notice and subsequent assessment order.

11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2023 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Micro Marbles Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO · section 147 · section 148 · section 148A · reassessment proceedings · reasons to believe · non-application of mind · furnishing of documents · quashing of notice

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 144BSection 148ASection 151(i)Section 151(ii)Section 153C
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 148a(c)section 69dsection 148(2)section 148a(a)order under section 148a(d)approval under section 151non application of mindsection 149(1)(b)income escaping assessmentspecified authoritysection 292bsection 148a(d)

Judgments citing Micro Marbles Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO

Rajendrakumar Shrishrimal, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 5(1), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3282/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.3282/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rajendrakumar Shrishrimal, V The Income Tax Officer, 685/3, Anant Vashat, S Ward-5(1), Pune. Bibwewadi, Pune – 411037. Pan: Bjsps9226G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Abhilash Hiran Revenue By Shri Sadananda – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 11/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12/02/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2017-18 Dated 16.10.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 Read With Section 144B Of The I.T.Act, 1961 Dated 03.05.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

…8/2029 Des/52023 dated 15 October 2025 OF T 12. Decision of the Hon'ble Delhi ITAT in the case of Sunil Kumar v DCIT (ITA No 2429/Del/2023) dated 15 April 2035 FEB 2026 13. Decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan HC in the case of Micro Marbles (P) Ltd v ITO (2023) 457 ITR 569 dated 04 January 2023 14. Decision of the Hon'ble SC in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-II [2015] 62 taxmann.com 3 (SC) dated 02-09-2015 4 ITA No.3282/PUN/2025 [A] 15. Decision of the Hon'ble Bom HC in the case of H.R. Mehta vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Mumbai [2016] 72 taxmann.com…

Ajay Kumar Bajaj, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-4(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 596/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.596/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Ajay Kumar Bajaj 1, Adarsh Nagar, Mowa, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan: Akepb2140C

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 151

…upplied to the appellant, following the judgment of our Bench in case of Leeladhar Chandrakar Vs. ITO, Bhilai [ITA No. 442/Rpr/2025, dt. 07/08/2025] relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in case of Micro Marbles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, Ward-1 [ 457 ITR 569 ]. 3. That, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 6,00,000.00 made by the AO and the impugned addition is liable to be quashed. 4. That, the appellant reserves the right to add, alter or delete any ground.” The Ld. Counsel for the assessee did not press the Ground of 2. appeal No.1. Having heard the submissions of the Ld. Counsel, t…

Deepak Agarwal, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 25, Delhi

ITA 2309/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 1Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 153ASection 68

…ntaining “reason to believe.‟ Had the AO furnished the documents, he would have been able to reach a firmer conclusion that crossed the threshold of suspicion and conjecture.” 5.1 Hon’ble Rajasthan High court decision in case of Micro Marbles Pvt. Ltd vs ITO 457 ITR 569, was also relied where, Hon’ble High Court held as follows:- “The petitioner in the grounds to the petition has taken a categorical stand that the respondents failed to furnish the information which formed the basis for reopening the assessment. It was not even provided with the statement of Deepak Jain, on which heavy reliance was being placed.…

Deepak Agarwal, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 13, Delhi

ITA 2308/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 1Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 153ASection 68

…ntaining “reason to believe.‟ Had the AO furnished the documents, he would have been able to reach a firmer conclusion that crossed the threshold of suspicion and conjecture.” 5.1 Hon’ble Rajasthan High court decision in case of Micro Marbles Pvt. Ltd vs ITO 457 ITR 569, was also relied where, Hon’ble High Court held as follows:- “The petitioner in the grounds to the petition has taken a categorical stand that the respondents failed to furnish the information which formed the basis for reopening the assessment. It was not even provided with the statement of Deepak Jain, on which heavy reliance was being placed.…

Deepak Agarwal, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-25, Delhi

ITA 2306/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 1Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 153ASection 68

…ntaining “reason to believe.‟ Had the AO furnished the documents, he would have been able to reach a firmer conclusion that crossed the threshold of suspicion and conjecture.” 5.1 Hon’ble Rajasthan High court decision in case of Micro Marbles Pvt. Ltd vs ITO 457 ITR 569, was also relied where, Hon’ble High Court held as follows:- “The petitioner in the grounds to the petition has taken a categorical stand that the respondents failed to furnish the information which formed the basis for reopening the assessment. It was not even provided with the statement of Deepak Jain, on which heavy reliance was being placed.…

Deepak Agarwal, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 25, Delhi

ITA 2305/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 1Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 153ASection 68

…ntaining “reason to believe.‟ Had the AO furnished the documents, he would have been able to reach a firmer conclusion that crossed the threshold of suspicion and conjecture.” 5.1 Hon’ble Rajasthan High court decision in case of Micro Marbles Pvt. Ltd vs ITO 457 ITR 569, was also relied where, Hon’ble High Court held as follows:- “The petitioner in the grounds to the petition has taken a categorical stand that the respondents failed to furnish the information which formed the basis for reopening the assessment. It was not even provided with the statement of Deepak Jain, on which heavy reliance was being placed.…

Rsd Containers Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward 7(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1320/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Khandelwal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr.-DR
Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 151ASection 153CSection 68

…ain for providing it with the relevant documents on the basis of which reassessment proceedings have been initiated against the assessee but no document was provided to the appellant till now. The Hon`ble Rajasthan in the case of Micro Marbles P Ltd. v/s ITO (457 ITR 569) held that non providing of relevant material to the assessee in connection with reasons for initiation of reassessment proceedings vitiates the whole proceedings. In this cited case also the Hon`ble Court quashed the notice u/s 148 and the assessment order passed in consequence thereto due to failure of the AO in providing relevant material to t…

Naveen Kumar Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-26(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 592/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 153C

…fatal to the reopening of the assessment. On this issue also, he relied on the following decisions :- a) Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Saraswati Petrochem Pvt Ltd vs ITO 470 ITR 47 b) Hon’ble Rajasthan High court in case of Micro Marbles Pvt Ltd vs ITO 457 ITR 569 11. On the other hand, ld. DR of the Revenue objected to the submissions made by the ld. AR and submitted that with regard to non-mention of date while sanctioning on the proforma of approval, he submitted that AO has recorded the date 27.03.2018, therefore, it cannot be argued that no date was mentioned in the sanction letter. With regard to sup…

Rajesh Khanna, Neelkanth Plywood, Yamunanagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Yamunanagar

In the result, the assessee's appeal in ITA

ITA 62/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT Sr.DR
Section 148Section 69A

…e assessee, but if the reasons make reference to any other document or letter or report, such document or letter or report should be enclosed with the reasons. 25.2 In “Micro Marbles Pvt. Ltd. Vs Office of the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1,Cittorgarh (Raj.)”, 457 ITR 569 (Raj.), “SABH Infrastructure” (supra) and “Tata Capital Financial ITA 62, 230/CHD/2024 & S.A.11/CHD/2024 A.Y.2018-19 36 Services Ltd.” (supra) were followed to hold that in view of these decisions, the AO is to mandatorily supply the assessee with all relevant documents referred to in the reasons to believe, so that the assessee may file proper…

Income Tax Officer, Yamuna Nagar vs. Rajesh Khanna, Yamuna Nagar

In the result, the assessee's appeal in ITA

ITA 230/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT Sr.DR
Section 148Section 69A

…e assessee, but if the reasons make reference to any other document or letter or report, such document or letter or report should be enclosed with the reasons. 25.2 In “Micro Marbles Pvt. Ltd. Vs Office of the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1,Cittorgarh (Raj.)”, 457 ITR 569 (Raj.), “SABH Infrastructure” (supra) and “Tata Capital Financial ITA 62, 230/CHD/2024 & S.A.11/CHD/2024 A.Y.2018-19 36 Services Ltd.” (supra) were followed to hold that in view of these decisions, the AO is to mandatorily supply the assessee with all relevant documents referred to in the reasons to believe, so that the assessee may file proper…

Ratnashri Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 4, New Delhi

ITA 1607/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 141(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 68

…hich is founded on unconfronted appraisal report (which in internal/confidential report only) and so same can not be utlilised against assessee sans same being confronted to assesssee (refer hon’ble rajastha high court in case of Micro Marbles 'Pvt Ltd vs ITO 457 ITR 569 and hon ’ble Bombay high Court in Anurag Gupta case 454 ITR 326 and further same has not been lawfully inducted vide separate/mandatory corresponding notice u/s 148 (refer delhi high court in Ranbaxy laboratories case 336 ITR 136 and Mumbai G bench of ITAT in case of Juliet industries ltd vs ITO (ITA 5452/Mum/2016 order dated 04.04.2018 and delhi…