PCIT v. M/s SNG Developers Limited

404 ITR 312High Court2018#1585 most cited

What is PCIT v. M/s SNG Developers Limited authority for?

Reasons for reopening assessment under Section 147 and issuing a Section 148 notice must meet statutory conditions. A flawed belief that income escaped assessment, based on incorrect facts like misidentified accommodation entries, vitiates reassessment jurisdiction.

71

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Also referred to as

PCIT v. SNG Developers Limited · 404 ITR 312 · Section 147 · Section 148 · reopening assessment · reasons recorded · statutory conditions · escaped assessment · accommodation entries · jurisdiction · non-application of mind

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 143(3)Section 151Section 143(1)Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

sanction under section 151section 147(b)processing under section 143(1)section 151(1)non application of mindlive linkmaterial facts necessary for assessmentshell companyfull and true disclosureshare capital and share premiumnon-application of mindsanctioning authority

Judgments citing PCIT v. M/s SNG Developers Limited

Radhu Developers (P) Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-20(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2866/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. T. S. Kapoorita No. 2866/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Radhu Developers (P.) Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, 811, Pearls Height-1, Netaji Ward-20(4), Subhash Place, Pitampura, New Delhi-110002 Delhi-110034 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcr0879A Assessee By : Sh. Suresh Kumar Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. S. L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.05.2019 Order This Is An Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, New Delhi Dated 05.02.2019. 2. The Assessee Has Taken Various Grounds Of Appeal Which Includes Grounds On Legal Issues As Well As Grounds On Merits. Ground Nos. 1 To 4 Are On Legal Issue Whereas Ground Nos. 5 To 9 Are On The Merits Of The Case.

For Appellant: Sh. Suresh Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…he assessment order. It was submitted that the huge difference in the figure shows that there is no application of mind by the Assessing Officer on the investigation report. Reliance in this respect was placed on the decision of Pr. CIT Vs SNG Developers Ltd. 404 ITR 312 (Del.) wherein it has been held that the reason to believe must be based on correct facts. The ld. AR further submitted that non-application of mind by the higher authorities is also there as the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax simply stated “I am satisfied”. The ld. AR submitted that in the form of recording reasons, the Assessing Officer has…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Randeep Investment (P) Ltd, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed and revenue is dismissed

ITA 4365/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year 2006-07 Ito Randeep Investment (P) Ltd. Ward-21(1), 2 Park Lane, Behind D-3, Room No. 220 Vs. Vasant Kunj, Krishan Garh C.R. Building New Delhi – 110003 New Delhi. Pan Aaccr0988D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year 2006-07 Randeep Investment Pvt. Ltd. Ito C/O O.P. Sapra & Associates, Ward-21(1) Advocates, New Delhi. Vs. C-763, New Friends Colony New Delhi 110025 Pan Aaccr0988D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 150(1)Section 150(2)Section 151Section 68Section 69C

…h the jurisdiction to reopen the case u/s 147. In support of his various contentions, he has relied upon judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of i) CIT vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd. reported in 396 ITR 5; and ii) Principal CIT vs. SNG Developers Ltd. 404 ITR 312. 14. On merits, Ld. Counsel submitted that the assessee has raised fresh share capital of Rs. 3,67,03,000/-, out of which AO has made addition of share capital of Rs. 1,53,50,000/- from 9 share subscribers. All the share subscription money were received through account payee cheques, and all the entities were income tax assesses and to prove the…

M/S. Randeep Investment Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed and revenue is dismissed

ITA 4000/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year 2006-07 Ito Randeep Investment (P) Ltd. Ward-21(1), 2 Park Lane, Behind D-3, Room No. 220 Vs. Vasant Kunj, Krishan Garh C.R. Building New Delhi – 110003 New Delhi. Pan Aaccr0988D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year 2006-07 Randeep Investment Pvt. Ltd. Ito C/O O.P. Sapra & Associates, Ward-21(1) Advocates, New Delhi. Vs. C-763, New Friends Colony New Delhi 110025 Pan Aaccr0988D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 150(1)Section 150(2)Section 151Section 68Section 69C

…h the jurisdiction to reopen the case u/s 147. In support of his various contentions, he has relied upon judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of i) CIT vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd. reported in 396 ITR 5; and ii) Principal CIT vs. SNG Developers Ltd. 404 ITR 312. 14. On merits, Ld. Counsel submitted that the assessee has raised fresh share capital of Rs. 3,67,03,000/-, out of which AO has made addition of share capital of Rs. 1,53,50,000/- from 9 share subscribers. All the share subscription money were received through account payee cheques, and all the entities were income tax assesses and to prove the…

Hightech Construction P.Ltdr, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Faridabad

In the result, both the Appeals of the assessee are partly

ITA 1606/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: SH. KAPIL GOEL, ADVFor Respondent: SH. AMIT KATOCH, SR. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 292B

…igh Court in the case of Atul Kumar Swamy 362 ITR 693, Consulting Engineers Services India Pvt. Ltd., 378 ITR 318, Nestle India Ltd., 384 ITR 334 and Priyadesh Gupta 385 ITR 452. The Hon’ble Delhi High Page 30 of 59 Court in the case of SNG Developers Ltd., 404 ITR 312 held that when A.O. initiated the re-assessment proceedings without application of mind, such proceedings would be invalid. A.O. in the present case has failed to verify the information received from Investigation Wing. Therefore, it is non-application of mind on the part of the A.O. to record correct facts in the reasons for reopening of the ass…

Hightech Construction P.Ltdr, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Faridabad

In the result, both the Appeals of the assessee are partly

ITA 1605/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: SH. KAPIL GOEL, ADVFor Respondent: SH. AMIT KATOCH, SR. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 292B

…igh Court in the case of Atul Kumar Swamy 362 ITR 693, Consulting Engineers Services India Pvt. Ltd., 378 ITR 318, Nestle India Ltd., 384 ITR 334 and Priyadesh Gupta 385 ITR 452. The Hon’ble Delhi High Page 30 of 59 Court in the case of SNG Developers Ltd., 404 ITR 312 held that when A.O. initiated the re-assessment proceedings without application of mind, such proceedings would be invalid. A.O. in the present case has failed to verify the information received from Investigation Wing. Therefore, it is non-application of mind on the part of the A.O. to record correct facts in the reasons for reopening of the ass…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Kanodia Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4858/DEL/2015[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillaia N D Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2003-04 Ito Kanodia Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Ward-14(2), Room No. 308, F- 108, Gali No. 8, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate Vs. Near Shiv Mandir, Pandav Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 68

…ision of Delhi High Court in the case of Atul Kumar Swamy 362 ITR 693, Consulting Engineers Services India Pvt. Ltd., 378 ITR 318, Nestle India Ltd., 384 ITR 334 and Priyadesh Gupta 385 ITR 452. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of SNG Developers Ltd., 404 ITR 312 held that when AO initiated the re-assessment proceedings without application of mind, such proceedings would be invalid. 7.1 It was held in the following cases that if the AO did not apply his mind and recorded the reasons purely on borrowed satisfaction without making any enquiries on his own and therefore the reasons as recorded are bad in la…

M/S. Sri Balaji Forgings (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT- 8, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee is allowed

ITA 3216/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri Prashant Maharishi, A.M.

For Appellant: Advocates &For Respondent: Shri S.S.Rana, CIT-D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…hi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Suren International (2013) 357 ITR 24 (Del.), Judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd., (2017) 396 ITR 5 (Del.) and Judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of SNG Developers Ltd., (2018) 404 ITR 312 (Del.). He has submitted that since re-assessment order was invalid and bad in law, therefore, same cannot be revised under section 263 of the I.T. Act. No cross-examination have been allowed to the statement of Shri S.K. Jain, therefore, re-assessment order is bad in law and cannot be reviewed. He has, therefore, submitted that proceedings under…

Superior Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. Pr. CIT- 8, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 3301/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri Prashant Maharishi, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri S.S.Rana, CIT-D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 263

…frastructure (P) Ltd., New Delhi & M/s. Superior Buildwell Private Limited, Delhi. Judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd., (2017) 396 ITR 5 (Del.) and Judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of SNG Developers Ltd., (2018) 404 ITR 312 (Del.). He has submitted that since re-assessment order was invalid and bad in law, therefore, same cannot be revised under section 263 of the I.T. Act. No cross-examination have been allowed to the statement of Shri S.K. Jain, therefore, re-assessment order is bad in law and cannot be reviewed. He has, therefore, submitted that proceedings under…

M/S. Spj Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. Pr. CIT- 8, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2857/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri Prashant Maharishi, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri S.S.Rana, CIT-D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 263

…frastructure (P) Ltd., New Delhi & M/s. Superior Buildwell Private Limited, Delhi. Judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd., (2017) 396 ITR 5 (Del.) and Judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of SNG Developers Ltd., (2018) 404 ITR 312 (Del.). He has submitted that since re-assessment order was invalid and bad in law, therefore, same cannot be revised under section 263 of the I.T. Act. No cross-examination have been allowed to the statement of Shri S.K. Jain, therefore, re-assessment order is bad in law and cannot be reviewed. He has, therefore, submitted that proceedings under…

M/S. Shiv Sai Infrastructure (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT- 8, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2527/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri Prashant Maharishi, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri S.S.Rana, CIT-D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 263

…frastructure (P) Ltd., New Delhi & M/s. Superior Buildwell Private Limited, Delhi. Judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd., (2017) 396 ITR 5 (Del.) and Judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of SNG Developers Ltd., (2018) 404 ITR 312 (Del.). He has submitted that since re-assessment order was invalid and bad in law, therefore, same cannot be revised under section 263 of the I.T. Act. No cross-examination have been allowed to the statement of Shri S.K. Jain, therefore, re-assessment order is bad in law and cannot be reviewed. He has, therefore, submitted that proceedings under…

M/S. Supersonic Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. Pr. CIT- 8, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2269/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri Prashant Maharishi, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri S.S.Rana, CIT-D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 263

…frastructure (P) Ltd., New Delhi & M/s. Superior Buildwell Private Limited, Delhi. Judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd., (2017) 396 ITR 5 (Del.) and Judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of SNG Developers Ltd., (2018) 404 ITR 312 (Del.). He has submitted that since re-assessment order was invalid and bad in law, therefore, same cannot be revised under section 263 of the I.T. Act. No cross-examination have been allowed to the statement of Shri S.K. Jain, therefore, re-assessment order is bad in law and cannot be reviewed. He has, therefore, submitted that proceedings under…