Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO

203 ITR 456Supreme Court of India1993#186 most cited

What is Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO authority for?

Reassessment proceedings under Section 147 are valid even after a scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3), provided the Assessing Officer forms a reason to believe, based on definite, specific, and reliable information, that income escaped assessment due to the assessee's failure to fully and truly disclose material facts.

396

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Phool Chand Bajrang Lal · Section 147 reassessment · Section 148 notice · reason to believe income escaped · full and true disclosure failure · definite and reliable information · reopening after 143(3) assessment · validity of reassessment proceedings · income escaping assessment reason to believe · SC judgment reopening assessment

Also reported as

69 Taxmann 6274 SCC 7769 Taxmann.com 627

Sections most often in play

Section 147 Section 148 Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 151 Section 68 Section 139 Section 133(6)

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 147(a)true and full disclosure full and true disclosure beyond four years live link material facts necessary for assessment kelvinator borrowed satisfaction mere change of opinion income escaping assessment reason to believe escapement of income

Judgments citing Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO

Vipul Impex & Infrabuild Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT-4(2), Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3005/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

…s by the assessee which had not been disclosed during the original assessment proceedings, such initiation has been upheld. 2.12. In the case of Pal Jain v. ITO, (2004) 267 ITR 540, 544-45, 548, 549 (P & H), applying Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO, (1993) 203 ITR 456 (SC), although the transaction of sale of shares was disclosed and accepted in the original assessment, but the subsequent discovery by the DDI (Investigation) revealed that the transaction was not genuine, a reassessment notice after four years has been held to be valid because there was no true disclosure of the material facts. In this regard,…

Vipul Impex & Infrabuild Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT-4(2), Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3004/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

…s by the assessee which had not been disclosed during the original assessment proceedings, such initiation has been upheld. 2.12. In the case of Pal Jain v. ITO, (2004) 267 ITR 540, 544-45, 548, 549 (P & H), applying Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO, (1993) 203 ITR 456 (SC), although the transaction of sale of shares was disclosed and accepted in the original assessment, but the subsequent discovery by the DDI (Investigation) revealed that the transaction was not genuine, a reassessment notice after four years has been held to be valid because there was no true disclosure of the material facts. In this regard,…

DCIT Cir. 4(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Vipul Impex & Infrabuild Ltd., Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2315/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

…s by the assessee which had not been disclosed during the original assessment proceedings, such initiation has been upheld. 2.12. In the case of Pal Jain v. ITO, (2004) 267 ITR 540, 544-45, 548, 549 (P & H), applying Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO, (1993) 203 ITR 456 (SC), although the transaction of sale of shares was disclosed and accepted in the original assessment, but the subsequent discovery by the DDI (Investigation) revealed that the transaction was not genuine, a reassessment notice after four years has been held to be valid because there was no true disclosure of the material facts. In this regard,…

DCIT Cir. 4(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Vipul Impex & Infrabuild Ltd., Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2314/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

…s by the assessee which had not been disclosed during the original assessment proceedings, such initiation has been upheld. 2.12. In the case of Pal Jain v. ITO, (2004) 267 ITR 540, 544-45, 548, 549 (P & H), applying Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO, (1993) 203 ITR 456 (SC), although the transaction of sale of shares was disclosed and accepted in the original assessment, but the subsequent discovery by the DDI (Investigation) revealed that the transaction was not genuine, a reassessment notice after four years has been held to be valid because there was no true disclosure of the material facts. In this regard,…

DCIT Cir. 4(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Vipul Impex & Infrabuild Ltd., Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2313/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

…s by the assessee which had not been disclosed during the original assessment proceedings, such initiation has been upheld. 2.12. In the case of Pal Jain v. ITO, (2004) 267 ITR 540, 544-45, 548, 549 (P & H), applying Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO, (1993) 203 ITR 456 (SC), although the transaction of sale of shares was disclosed and accepted in the original assessment, but the subsequent discovery by the DDI (Investigation) revealed that the transaction was not genuine, a reassessment notice after four years has been held to be valid because there was no true disclosure of the material facts. In this regard,…

Asst CIT Cir 3, Kalyan vs. Rich & Royal, Kalyan

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed in the manner indicated above

ITA 1007/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Apr 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1007/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Acit Cir 3 बिाम/ M/S. Rich & Royal 2N D Floor, Rani Mansion, The Raymond Shop, Murbad Road, Kalyan(W), Zojwalla Complex, V. Dist Thane 421301 Agra Road, Kalyan (W) 421301 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aadfr3357G (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri. Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Shri. Saurabh Kumar Rai

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 43B

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “J” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1007/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) ACIT CIR 3 बिाम/ M/s. Rich & Royal 2n d Floor, Rani Mansion, The Raymond Shop, Murbad Road, Kalyan(W), Zojwalla complex, v. Dist Thane 421301 Agra Road, Kalyan (W) 421301 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN : AADFR3357G (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee by: Shri. Subodh Ratnaparkhi Revenue by : Shri. Saurabh Kumar Rai सुनवाई की तारीख /Date of…

ACIT, Jaipur vs. Rajendra Kumar Jain, Jaipur

ITA 521/JPR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

…rt in the case of Ganga Saran & Sons Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO, 130 ITR 1 (SC) and submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that action under section 148 is not warranted on mere suspicion or rumor. Similarly in the case of Phoolchand Bajrang Lal vs. CIT, 203 ITR 456 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that it is open to the assessee to establish that there in fact existed no belief and the belief was not bonafide one or based on vague, irrelevant and no specific information. Hence, the ld. A/R has submitted that the AO was unable to substantiate information/belief of escapement of income of Rs.11.59…

ACIT, Jaipur vs. Rajendra Kumar Jain, Jaipur

ITA 520/JPR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

…rt in the case of Ganga Saran & Sons Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO, 130 ITR 1 (SC) and submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that action under section 148 is not warranted on mere suspicion or rumor. Similarly in the case of Phoolchand Bajrang Lal vs. CIT, 203 ITR 456 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that it is open to the assessee to establish that there in fact existed no belief and the belief was not bonafide one or based on vague, irrelevant and no specific information. Hence, the ld. A/R has submitted that the AO was unable to substantiate information/belief of escapement of income of Rs.11.59…

ACIT, Jaipur vs. Rajendra Kumar Jain, Jaipur

ITA 519/JPR/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

…rt in the case of Ganga Saran & Sons Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO, 130 ITR 1 (SC) and submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that action under section 148 is not warranted on mere suspicion or rumor. Similarly in the case of Phoolchand Bajrang Lal vs. CIT, 203 ITR 456 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that it is open to the assessee to establish that there in fact existed no belief and the belief was not bonafide one or based on vague, irrelevant and no specific information. Hence, the ld. A/R has submitted that the AO was unable to substantiate information/belief of escapement of income of Rs.11.59…

Rajendra Kumar Jain, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

ITA 408/JPR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

…rt in the case of Ganga Saran & Sons Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO, 130 ITR 1 (SC) and submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that action under section 148 is not warranted on mere suspicion or rumor. Similarly in the case of Phoolchand Bajrang Lal vs. CIT, 203 ITR 456 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that it is open to the assessee to establish that there in fact existed no belief and the belief was not bonafide one or based on vague, irrelevant and no specific information. Hence, the ld. A/R has submitted that the AO was unable to substantiate information/belief of escapement of income of Rs.11.59…

Rajendra Kumar Jain, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

ITA 295/JPR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

…rt in the case of Ganga Saran & Sons Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO, 130 ITR 1 (SC) and submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that action under section 148 is not warranted on mere suspicion or rumor. Similarly in the case of Phoolchand Bajrang Lal vs. CIT, 203 ITR 456 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that it is open to the assessee to establish that there in fact existed no belief and the belief was not bonafide one or based on vague, irrelevant and no specific information. Hence, the ld. A/R has submitted that the AO was unable to substantiate information/belief of escapement of income of Rs.11.59…

Rajendra Kumar Jain, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

ITA 294/JPR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

…rt in the case of Ganga Saran & Sons Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO, 130 ITR 1 (SC) and submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that action under section 148 is not warranted on mere suspicion or rumor. Similarly in the case of Phoolchand Bajrang Lal vs. CIT, 203 ITR 456 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that it is open to the assessee to establish that there in fact existed no belief and the belief was not bonafide one or based on vague, irrelevant and no specific information. Hence, the ld. A/R has submitted that the AO was unable to substantiate information/belief of escapement of income of Rs.11.59…

Rajendra Kumar Jain, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

ITA 293/JPR/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

…rt in the case of Ganga Saran & Sons Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO, 130 ITR 1 (SC) and submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that action under section 148 is not warranted on mere suspicion or rumor. Similarly in the case of Phoolchand Bajrang Lal vs. CIT, 203 ITR 456 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that it is open to the assessee to establish that there in fact existed no belief and the belief was not bonafide one or based on vague, irrelevant and no specific information. Hence, the ld. A/R has submitted that the AO was unable to substantiate information/belief of escapement of income of Rs.11.59…

ACIT 2(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Monarch Innovative Technologies P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4815/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4815/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) बिाम/ Acit,Circle 2(2)(2) M/S. Monarch Innovative R.No. 545, 5 T H Floor, Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Monarch House, Master V. M.K. Road Mind-Ii, Aarey Colony, Churchgate, Mayur Nagar, Mumbai 400020 Goregoan(E), Mumbai 400063 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaccm6709P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Surji ChhedaFor Respondent: Shri. Ram Tiwari

Section 115Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80I

…aws:- a) Eleganza Jewellery Limited v. CIT (20140 62 taxmann.com 46(Bom HC). b) CIT v. National Tyre & Rubber Tyres Co. Of India Limited (2011) 15 taxmann.com (ker.) (c) ITO v. Lakmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437(SC) (d) Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO (1993) 203 ITR 456(SC) (e) Raymond Woolen Mills v. ITO (1999) 236 ITR 34(SC) (f) Desh Raj Udyog v. ITO (2009) 318 ITR 6(All.) The Ld. AR on the other hand submitted that originally return of income was filed in time by the assessee with the Revenue as stipulated u/s. 139(1). It was submitted that conditions of Section 80IC is to file return of income in I.T.A. No.4…

Dixit Processors, Bhiwandi vs. ITO WD 1(1), Kalyan

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 937/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Dixit Processors, Ito-1(1) H. No. 1581, New Kaneri, Kalyan Vs. Near Jain Compound, Kalyan Road, Bhiwandi-421302. Pan No. Aaefd1227G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Dr. P. Daniel, Ar Revenue By : Mr. V. Vidhyadhar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 23/01/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/01/2017

For Appellant: Dr. P. Daniel, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V. Vidhyadhar, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…hat transaction at the time of original assessment proceedings cannot be said to be a disclosure of the ‘true’ and ‘full’ facts and the ITO would have jurisdiction to reopen concluded assessment in such a case as held in Phool Chand Bajrang Lal vs. ITO [1993] 203 ITR 456 (SC). In a recent decision the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Peass Industrial Engineers (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2016) 73 taxmann.com 185 (Guj) held : “Where after scrutiny assessment, Assessing Officer received information from investigation wing that two well known entry operators of country Dixit Processor beneficiary, Assessing Officer was justif…

Akash Purochem P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 10(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed whereas the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 505/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Akash Purochem Pvt. Ito-10(2)(1), Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. 1/5 Kandhari Colony, 2Nd Road, Churchgate, Road, Chembur, Mumbai. Mumbai-400071 Pan No. Aacca9261A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-14(1)(1) M/S Akash Purochem Pvt. R. No. 431, 4Th Floor, Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. 1/5 Kandhari Colony, 2Nd Road, Road, Chembur, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400071 Pan No. Aacca9261A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Akash Purochem Pvt. Ito-10(2)(1), Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. 1/5 Kandhari Colony, 2Nd Road, Churchgate, Road, Chembur, Mumbai. Mumbai-400071 Pan No. Aacca9261A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. S.R. Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V. Vidhyadhar, DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…f original assessment proceedings cannot be said to be a M/s Akash Purochem Pvt. Ltd. disclosure of the ‘true’ and ‘full’ facts and the ITO would have jurisdiction to reopen concluded assessment in such a case as held in Phool Chand Bajrang Lal vs. ITO [1993] 203 ITR 456 (SC). In a recent decision the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Peass Industrial Engineers (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2016) 73 taxmann.com 185 (Guj) has held that: “Where after scrutiny assessment, Assessing Officer received information from investigation wing that two well-known entry operators of country provided bogus entries to various beneficiaries, a…

Arvind Balkrishna Goregonkar, Mumbai vs. ITO 21(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 6717/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6717/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Arvind Balkrishna Goregaonkar I.T.O.-21(2)(1), B-1305, Bhavya Heights, Mumbai बनाम/ Katrak Road, Near Ram Mandir, Vs. Wadala (W), Mumbai-400 031 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaipg 6212 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ajay R. Singh ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. N. Hemalatha

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. SinghFor Respondent: Ms. N. Hemalatha

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

…R 459 (Mumbai Trib), Praful Chunilal Patel 148 CTR (Guj.). The sufficiency of reasons cannot be looked into by courts and there must be recording of prima facie belief has also been held in cases of Raymond woolen mills 236 ITR 34 (SC), Phool Chand Bjaranglal 203 ITR 456 (SC), K R Sadayappan 63 ITR 219 (SC). In case of Multi Screen Media (P) Ltd. 324 ITR 54 (Bom) the jurisdictional high court after considering the decision in case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) has observed as under : "Where the AO purports to exercise power under s.147 within a period of four years from the end of t…

Siya Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 865/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 865/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Siya Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, Up-12, Pitampura, Ward-8(4), New Delhi-110034 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaics7889N Assessee By : Smt. Rano Jain, Adv. & Sh. Ashish Chadha, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2017 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.12.2012 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xi, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Smt. Rano Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…shok Kumar Sen Vs ITO 132 ITR 707 (Del.) " Sheo Nath Singh Vs AAC (1971) 82 ITR 147 (SC) " Technocraft Industries Vs AO (1990) 186 ITR 514 " Murlidhar Bhagwandas (1961) 52 ITR 335 (SC) " Gardhara Singh (1980) 125 ITR 340 (P&H) " Phool Chand Bajrang Lal (1993) 203 ITR 456 (SC) " ITO Vs Rajeev Aggarwal 89 TTJ 1095 (Del.) " Kishenchand Chellaram Vs CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC) " ACIT Vs G. M. Infrastructure IT(SS) No. 133/Ind/2008 to 135/Ind/2008 " Jyoti Pat Ram Vs ITO (2007) 92 ITD 423 (Luc.) " ACIT Vs Smt. Jyoti Devi (2004) 84 TTJ 689 (Jai) " CIT Vs Mudra G. Nanavati (HC-Bom) " CIT Vs Mudra G. Nanavati (HC-Bom) " Mudra G.…

Anil Bihani, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 24(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 20/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Anil Bihani Acit-24(1), 12, Kakkad Comm. 6Th Floor, Lalbaug, Vs. Complex, Below Sun- Mumbai. N-Sheel, J.B. Nagar, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400059. Pan No. Aadpb1860C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rajat Mittal, Dr Date Of Hearing : 21/08/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 03/11/2017

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal, DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…hat transaction at the time of original assessment proceedings cannot be said to be a disclosure of the ‘true’ and ‘full’ facts and the ITO would have jurisdiction to reopen concluded assessment in such a case as held in Phool Chand Bajrang Lal vs. ITO [1993] 203 ITR 456 (SC). In a recent decision the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Peass Industrial Engineers (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2016) 73 taxmann.com 185 (Guj) has held that: “Where after scrutiny assessment, Assessing Officer received information from investigation wing that two well known entry operators of country provided bogus entries to various beneficiaries, a…

Mithalal D Mutha, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 16(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed as already a justified view has been taken by the Ld

ITA 594/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10

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

…ments by the assessee which had not been disclosed during the original assessment proceedings, such initiation has been upheld. 2.13 In the case of Pal Jain v. ITO, (2004) 267 ITR 540, 544-45, 548, 549 (P & H), applying Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO, (1993) 203 ITR 456 (SC), 17 Shri Mithalal D Mutha although the transaction of sale of shares was disclosed and accepted in the original assessment, but the subsequent discovery by the DDI (Investigation) revealed that the transaction was not genuine, a reassessment notice after four years has been held to be valid because there was no true disclosure of the materi…