Northern Exim (P) Ltd. v. DCIT

357 ITR 586High Court2013#2395 most cited

What is Northern Exim (P) Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

The validity of reassessment proceedings under Section 147 is judged solely by the reasons recorded, which cannot be supplemented or improved upon by any subsequent material or order rejecting objections.

48

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,359 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Northern Exim (P) Ltd. v. DCIT · Section 147 · Section 148 · reasons recorded · validity of reassessment · reopening assessment · income escaping assessment · reason to believe · subsequent material · supplementing reasons · order rejecting objections · Delhi High Court

Sections most often in play

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153CSection 65B

Issues it is cited on

section 148(2)live linksection 246aincome escaping assessmentescapement of incomereason to believeincome-tax officerreassessment proceedingsnotice under section 148undisclosed incomesection 139condonation of delay

Judgments citing Northern Exim (P) Ltd. v. DCIT

Garudapally Shruthi Gupta, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 11/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 69

…ng Officer. The reasons which are recorded cannot be supplemented by affidavits. The imposition of that requirement ensures against an arbitrary exercise of powers under section 148.” (Emphasis supplied) 4. In the case of Northern Exim (P) Ltd vs DCIT [2013] 357 ITR 586 (Delhi), the Hon’ble High court held that having regard to the entire scheme and purpose of the Act, the validity of the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 can be tested only by reference to the reasons recorded under Section 148(2) of the Act and the Assessing Officer is not authorised to refer to any other reason even if it can be oth…

Garudapally Shruthi Gupta, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 10/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 69

…ng Officer. The reasons which are recorded cannot be supplemented by affidavits. The imposition of that requirement ensures against an arbitrary exercise of powers under section 148.” (Emphasis supplied) 4. In the case of Northern Exim (P) Ltd vs DCIT [2013] 357 ITR 586 (Delhi), the Hon’ble High court held that having regard to the entire scheme and purpose of the Act, the validity of the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 can be tested only by reference to the reasons recorded under Section 148(2) of the Act and the Assessing Officer is not authorised to refer to any other reason even if it can be oth…

Bhavmeet Singh Bhatia, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-43(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 6545/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.M. Gargassessment Year: 2011-12 Bhavmeet Singh Bhatia, Vs. Acit, C/O Rra Taxindia, Circle-43(1), D-28, South Extn. Part-I, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Amypb7621A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somil Agarwal & Shri Deepesh Garg, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Mithalesh Kr. Pandey, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.09.2022 Order

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal &For Respondent: Shri Mithalesh Kr. Pandey, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

…eless and wrong. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings and impugned reassessment order may kindly be quashed. The ld. Counsel also placed reliance on the judgement of the jurisdiction High Court of Delhi in the case of Northern Exim (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2013) 357 ITR 586 (Del) and submitted that no income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment when the reasons recorded for issue of notice u/s 148 of the 3 Act were factually incorrect. The ld. Counsel had also placed reliance on the decision of the ITAT Delhi in the case of Bir Bahadur Singh Sijwali vs. ITO reported in (2015) 68 SOT 197 (Del) to submit that the…

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

…er of suppression of material facts by the Appellant. Therefore, the conditions prescribed in the proviso to section 147 are not fulfilled. In this context, the Appellant relies on the following Decisions [PB-Vol.1-Pages 128 to 153] (i) Northern Exim (P) Ltd -357 ITR 586 (Del) (ii) Tantia Constructions Co Ltd -257 ITR 84 (Cal) Pages-128 to 153 :- 8 -: ITA No.. 497/Hyd/2019 and CO 16/H/2019 Coastal Projects Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. (iii) 5abharwal properties industries (P) Ltd -382 ITR 547 (Del) (iv) AV TEe Ltd -395 ITR 434 (Del) 7.5 The earned PClT, Central has mechanically and without application of mind has approved t…

Sanjeev Malhotra, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-24(2), New Delhi

ITA 6723/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Justice P. P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Though Video Conferencing) Through Video Conferencing Shri Sanjeev Malhotra Dcit, Vs. 10/81, Punjabi Bag West Circle-24(2), New Delhi- 110026 New Delhi Pan Aagpm3216Q

For Appellant: Shri Ajay WadhwaFor Respondent: Shri H K Chaudhary
Section 147Section 148Section 68

…f sale consideration received from Rana is a fund from M/s Willey Agrotech Ltd company owned by Mr. Rana therefore, there is no reason to make any addition in the hands of the assessee. He further relied upon the decision of the Honourable Delhi High Court in 357 ITR 586 stating that the AO was guided only by the reasons recorded for making the addition. He further submitted that in the reasons recorded there is nothing which shows that Mr. Rana has denied the whole transaction. In view of this he submitted that addition is incorrectly made in the hands of the assessee. 18. With respect to the reopening of the as…

Ambey Construction Company, Bathinda vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 121/ASR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 121/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ambey Construction Company, Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of #21605, Street No. 7, Power House Income Tax, Circle-1, Road, Bathinda Bathinda (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aanfa7199K

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh GuptaFor Respondent: Sh. M. P. Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 282Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR Before Sh. N. S. Saini, Accountant Member And Sh. N. K. Choudhry, Judicial Member ITA No. 121/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ambey Construction Company, Vs Asstt. Commissioner of #21605, Street No. 7, Power House Income Tax, Circle-1, Road, Bathinda Bathinda (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AANFA7199K Assessee by : Dr. Rakesh Gupta Revenue by : Sh. M. P. Singh, CIT DR Date of Hearing :19.02.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 21.02.2019 ORDER Per N. S. Saini, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A), Bathinda dated…

Jindal Pipes Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2654/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Apr 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2004-05 Jindal Pipes Ltd., Vs Acit, Plot No.5, 2Nd Floor, Circle 4(1), Pusa Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aaacj2055K)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…otice u/s 148 and thereafter made an addition of Rs. 20 lakh alleging that the assessee was not able to prove the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the unsecured loans. Ld. AR relied on the case of the Northern Exim Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT reported in 357 ITR 586 (Delhi) wherein the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that validity of the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 can be tested only by reference to the reasons recorded u/s 148(2) of the Act and the Assessing Officer is not authorised to refer to any other reason even if it can otherwise be inferred and/or gathered from the records. Reliance was a…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-(Central-2) vs. Victoria Marketing Pvt. Ltd

ITA/825/2015HC Delhi30 Oct 2015

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

…easons either in the form of an order rejecting the objections or an affidavit filed by WP (C) No.8994/2014 & connected matters Page 14 of 15 the Revenue. In this context, the decision of this Court in Northern Exim (P) Ltd. v. DCIT [2013] 357 ITR 586 (Del) is instructive. Para 14 of the said decision reads as under: “14. The learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department drew our attention to the entry made on 22.01.2001 in the proceedings sheet recorded in the course of the re-assessment proceedings. We have already seen that the said entry records that the authorised represent…