Mumtaz Haji Mohamad Menon v. ITO

408 ITR 268High Court2018#4357 most cited

What is Mumtaz Haji Mohamad Menon v. ITO authority for?

An assessment framed under Section 147/143(3) is invalid if the Assessing Officer's reasons for reopening are based on incorrect facts, such as a wrongly recorded belief that no return of income was filed. The approval for reopening under Section 151 must be granted by the specified authority with due application of mind to the reasons provided.

27

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Mumtaz Haji Mohamad Menon v. ITO · 408 ITR 268 · Section 147 · Section 151 · reopening of assessment · invalid assessment · incorrect facts · non application of mind · sanction under section 151 · specified authority

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 144B

Issues it is cited on

section 10(25)section 2(40)sanctioning authoritysanction under section 151non application of mindmaterial facts necessary for assessmentspecified authoritysection 50csection 50section 151(1)borrowed satisfactionreopening of assessment

Judgments citing Mumtaz Haji Mohamad Menon v. ITO

The Pr. CIT Mumbai City-19, Mumbai vs. Shri Champaklal M. Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, the impugned notice is quashed

ITA 2253/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2022AY 2011-12
Section 143(3)Section 148

…clined to quash the impugned notice dated March 27, 2018 as also the impugned order dated September 28, 2018. It is ordered accordingly. 3.4. Similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Mumtaz Haji Mohamad Menon vs ITO reported in 408 ITR 268 wherein it was held as under:- “In this context, we have noted that the reasons proceeded on two fun- damental grounds. One, that the property in question was sold for a sum of Rs. 1,18,95,000; and two, that the assessee had not filed the return and that therefore his 1/3rd share out of the sale proceeds was not offered to tax. Both these factual…

Rajesh Gulati, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-4(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5170/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Vipin Jain CAFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151(1)

…isdiction without any foundation. The identically placed issue has been decided in favour of the assessee in Sunrise Education Trust vs. ITO (E) (Special Civil) Application No.16726 of 2017 judgment dated 19th February, 2018; Mumtaz Haji Mohmad Memon vs. ITO, 408 ITR 268 (Guj.); Sagar Enterprises, 257 ITR 335 (Guj.); Khem Chand Sankhla vs. Union of India, 181 CTR 380 (Raj.). Clearly, the assumption of jurisdiction on the basis of non existent premise is without authority of law and thus cannot be sustained. The re-assessment notice issued on the basis of wrong assumption of jurisdiction is a complete non-starter…

Ritika Gupta, Kanpur vs. ITO1(2)(3), Kanpur

ITA 48/LKW/2021[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 Aug 2022AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri T.S. Kapoorassessment Year 2012-13

Section 139Section 148

…for reopening of the case was placed. The ld. AR submitted that reopening initiated on the basis of wrong facts is bad in law and reliance in this respect was placed on the following judgments: 1. Mumtaz Haji Mohammad Memon vs. ITO, Ward 6(1)(1), reported in 408 ITR 268 (Guj). 2. Sagar Enterprises vs. ACIT, reported in 257 ITR 335 (Guj.) 6. The ld. AR further placed his reliance on an order of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Shri Sunil Kumar Rastogi HUF vs. ITO, Writ Tax No. 658 of 2017 where vide order dated 02.12.2019 the Hon'ble Court has held in favour of the assessee under similar facts and circ…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad vs. Coastal Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the C.O. filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 497/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri H. SrinivasuluFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 153ASection 69

…oviso to 147 was on the basis of wrong facts. The Appellant relies on the following decisions in this context. [PB-Caselaws Vol.1- Pages 59 - 65] (i) Anita A.choksey- 411 ITR 207 (Bom) (ii) sagar Enterprises-257 ITR 335 (Guj) (iii) Mumtaz Haji Mohammed Memon- 408 ITR 268 (Guj) , PB - 59 - 65 (caselaws) (iv) Misra Preserves (P) Ltd -350 ITR 222 (All) (v) Fair Investment Ltd- 357 ITR 146 (Del) Further, the AO has not adverted to the dates of payment by Safeco Project (I)) Ltd. A portion of RS.7.65 Cr was received in FY 2009-10 and not the total amount. Thus, the reopening is on the mistaken facts. 7.3 The Appellant…

Sanjeev Chandrakant Deo, Mumbai vs. ITO 29 (3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 2280/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri M. Balaganesh ()

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 282Section 292BSection 4Section 68Section 69B

…sessment order passed in pursuance to such wrong initiation of proceeding would be invalid. In support of such contention, he relied upon the following decisions:- 1. Sagar Enterprises vs ACIT (2002) 257 ITR 335 (Guj) 2. Mumtaz Haji Mohmad Memon vs ITO (2018) 408 ITR 268 (Guj) 3. Baba Kartar Singh Dukki Educational Trust vs ITO (2016) 158 ITD 965 (Chandigarh Trib.) 7. Strongly relying upon the observations of the assessing officer and learned Commissioner (Appeals) the learned departmental representative submitted, the issues regarding valid service of notice issued under section 148 of the Act and validity of r…

Ashish Bhardwaj, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward-36(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 9232/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2021AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms Rano Mukherjee, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 2(30)Section 5(1)Section 6Section 6(1)Section 69A

…o issue a valid notice u/s 148 being without application of mind and without foundation:- i) Kolahai Infotech P. Ltd. vs. (2018) 409 ITR 595 (Del); ii) Shamshad Khan vs. ACIT [2017] 395 ITR 265: 82 taxmann.com 35 (Delhi); iii) Mumtaz Hazi Mohamad Memon (2018) 408 ITR 268 (Guj); iv) Shri Sanjeev Malhotra vs. DCIT -ITA No. 6723/D/2018(Del-‘G’); v) Jagat Singh vs. ITO - ITA NO. 2749/D/18 (Del-C); vi) ACIT vs.. M/s Asis Plywood Pvt. Ltd.(ITA No. 2144/D/l5) (28/01/2019); & vii)Pr. CIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas [2017] 82 taxmann.com 300 (Delhi) 5.2. He accordingly submitted that the reopening of the assessment is bad in…

Space Chem Engineers Private Limited, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward-2(3), Ghaziabad

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1791/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaasstt. Year 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjiv Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 68

…he notice u/s 148 is based on non existent/incorrect reasons, the same is invalid and the addition based on such reason, notice and proceedings become infructuous :- (A) KOLAHAI INFOTECH P LTD. V ITO (2018) 409 ITR 595(DEL) (B)MUMTAZ HAZI MOHMAD MEMON (2018)408 ITR 268 (GUJ) (C)SHRI SANJEEV MALHOTRA V DCIT –ITA NO.723 / D / 2018 (DEL -‘G’) (D) ASHWANI ATRISH V ITO – ITA NO. 563/D/2019 (DEL-SMC) (E) JAGAT SINGH V. ITO-ITA NO. 2749/D/18(DEL-C) (F) GLOSIL LEASING & FINANCE (p) LTD. V. ITO-ITA 4912/2012(DEL-C) (G) ORIENTAL BANK OF COMM V ADDL. CIT [2014] 49 TAXMANN.COM 485 (DELHI) 13. Ld. Counsel for the assessee…