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 367,154 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 147Section 148Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 151Section 68Section 139Section 133(6)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 147(a)true and full disclosurefull and true disclosurebeyond four yearslive linkmaterial facts necessary for assessmentkelvinatorborrowed satisfactionmere change of opinionincome escaping assessmentreason to believeescapement of income

Judgments citing Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Raipur vs. Bagadiya Brothers Private Limited, Raipur

Accordingly the appeals filed by the revenue for A.Y.2010-11 & 2011-12 are dismissed and the cross-objection/Additional cross-objections filed by the assessee for A.Y.2010-11 & 2011-12 are allowed ...

ITA 75/RPR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 223 & 224/Rpr/2019 Co Nos.27 & 28/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Bagadiya Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Bagadiya Mansion, Jawahar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aabcb8934G ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 75/Rpr/2020 Co No. 02/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Bagadiya Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Bagadiya Mansion, Jawahar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aabcb8934G ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 151

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos. 223 & 224/RPR/2019 CO Nos.27 & 28/RPR/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. M/s. Bagadiya Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Bagadiya Mansion, Jawahar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) PAN : AABCB8934G ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 75/RPR/2020 CO No. 02/RPR/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Deputy…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Raipur vs. Bagadiya Brothers Private Limited, Raipur

Accordingly the appeals filed by the revenue for A.Y.2010-11 & 2011-12 are dismissed and the cross-objection/Additional cross-objections filed by the assessee for A.Y.2010-11 & 2011-12 are allowed ...

ITA 224/RPR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 223 & 224/Rpr/2019 Co Nos.27 & 28/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Bagadiya Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Bagadiya Mansion, Jawahar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aabcb8934G ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 75/Rpr/2020 Co No. 02/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Bagadiya Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Bagadiya Mansion, Jawahar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aabcb8934G ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 151

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos. 223 & 224/RPR/2019 CO Nos.27 & 28/RPR/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. M/s. Bagadiya Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Bagadiya Mansion, Jawahar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) PAN : AABCB8934G ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 75/RPR/2020 CO No. 02/RPR/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Deputy…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Raipur vs. Bagadiya Brothers Private Limited, Raipur

Accordingly the appeals filed by the revenue for A.Y.2010-11 & 2011-12 are dismissed and the cross-objection/Additional cross-objections filed by the assessee for A.Y.2010-11 & 2011-12 are allowed ...

ITA 223/RPR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 223 & 224/Rpr/2019 Co Nos.27 & 28/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Bagadiya Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Bagadiya Mansion, Jawahar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aabcb8934G ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 75/Rpr/2020 Co No. 02/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Bagadiya Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Bagadiya Mansion, Jawahar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aabcb8934G ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 151

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos. 223 & 224/RPR/2019 CO Nos.27 & 28/RPR/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. M/s. Bagadiya Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Bagadiya Mansion, Jawahar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) PAN : AABCB8934G ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 75/RPR/2020 CO No. 02/RPR/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Deputy…

Twenty First Century Management Services Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 860/CHNY/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 860/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009 - 10 Twenty First Century The Acit, Management Services Ltd., Vs. Corporate Circle-3(1), G3 No.67, Eldams Road, Chennai Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018. Pan: Aaact 2397L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 31.10.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Chennai, In Ita No.404(T)/Cit(A)-7/2016-17 Dated 21.02.2020. The Assessment Was Framed By The Acit, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai For The Assessment Year 2009-10 U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 28.06.2016. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noticed That This Appeal Is Delayed By 169 Days. This Appeal Was Filed Before Tribunal Only On 26.10.2020 & As Per Form 36, The Order Of Cit(A) Was Received On 11.03.2020. The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Petition Stating That The Delay Was Due To The Spread Of Covid-19 Pandemic & Nationwide Lockdown Imposed By The Government From 25.03.2020. The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In Miscellaneous Application No.665 Of 2021 Vide Order Dated 23.03.2020 Has Given Directions That The Delay Are To Be Condoned During This Period 15.03.2020 To 14.03.2021 & They Have Condoned The Delay Up To 28.02.2022 In Miscellaneous Application No.21 Of 2022 Vide Order Dated 10.01.2022. In Term Of The Directions Of Hon’Ble Supreme Court, We Condone The Delay In Filing Of This Appeal By Assessee & Admit The Appeal For Adjudication.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 47

…t exist reasons for holding a belief of escapment of income. It is open to the assesseee to establish that there infact existed no belief or that the belief was not a bonafide one or was based on non-specified information. Phoolchand Bajrang Lal Vs ITO 919930 203 ITR 456 (SC). In my considered view the AO has sufficient "reason to believe" which formed the basis for reopening the assessment u/s 147 of the Act. Moreover, the re-opening was effected on the basis of fresh evidence which was not in AO's possession. Legal grounds are therefore dismissed. 4.1 The CIT(A) on merits has decided the issue by observing as…

The Dy CIT (It)-Circle-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Manish Vijay Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee for both the years are dismissed

ITA 494/MUM/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, DR
Section 148

…ing whether they are supposed to file return of income in India or not. 11. The AO has merely acted upon the directions of Investigation Wing of Mumbai and not based upon an enquiry/examination/verification of his own findings. Phool Chand Bajrang Lal (1993) 203 ITR 456 (SC) 12. The AO has violated the mandate of jurisdictional High Court in case of Asian Paints Ltd v/s. DCIT (2008) 296 ITR 96 (Bom) as assessment was completed within 4 weeks after disposal of the objections. Similar view has been taken by Hon. Bombay High Court in Bharat Jayantilal Patel v. UOI (2015) 378 ITR 596 (Bom.)(HC). 13. The Hon'ble Del…

The Dy CIT (It)-Circle-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Manish Vijay Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee for both the years are dismissed

ITA 493/MUM/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, DR
Section 148

…ing whether they are supposed to file return of income in India or not. 11. The AO has merely acted upon the directions of Investigation Wing of Mumbai and not based upon an enquiry/examination/verification of his own findings. Phool Chand Bajrang Lal (1993) 203 ITR 456 (SC) 12. The AO has violated the mandate of jurisdictional High Court in case of Asian Paints Ltd v/s. DCIT (2008) 296 ITR 96 (Bom) as assessment was completed within 4 weeks after disposal of the objections. Similar view has been taken by Hon. Bombay High Court in Bharat Jayantilal Patel v. UOI (2015) 378 ITR 596 (Bom.)(HC). 13. The Hon'ble Del…

The Dy CIT (It)-Circle-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Urvi Manish Mehra, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee for both the years are dismissed

ITA 492/MUM/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, DR
Section 148

…ing whether they are supposed to file return of income in India or not. 11. The AO has merely acted upon the directions of Investigation Wing of Mumbai and not based upon an enquiry/examination/verification of his own findings. Phool Chand Bajrang Lal (1993) 203 ITR 456 (SC) 12. The AO has violated the mandate of jurisdictional High Court in case of Asian Paints Ltd v/s. DCIT (2008) 296 ITR 96 (Bom) as assessment was completed within 4 weeks after disposal of the objections. Similar view has been taken by Hon. Bombay High Court in Bharat Jayantilal Patel v. UOI (2015) 378 ITR 596 (Bom.)(HC). 13. The Hon'ble Del…

The Dy CIT (It)-Circle-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Urvi Manish Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee for both the years are dismissed

ITA 491/MUM/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, DR
Section 148

…ing whether they are supposed to file return of income in India or not. 11. The AO has merely acted upon the directions of Investigation Wing of Mumbai and not based upon an enquiry/examination/verification of his own findings. Phool Chand Bajrang Lal (1993) 203 ITR 456 (SC) 12. The AO has violated the mandate of jurisdictional High Court in case of Asian Paints Ltd v/s. DCIT (2008) 296 ITR 96 (Bom) as assessment was completed within 4 weeks after disposal of the objections. Similar view has been taken by Hon. Bombay High Court in Bharat Jayantilal Patel v. UOI (2015) 378 ITR 596 (Bom.)(HC). 13. The Hon'ble Del…

DCIT 13(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Pebble Bay Developers P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes, is allowed for statistical purposes, whereas the application of the assessee under rule 27 is ...

ITA 5744/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2008-09 Dy. Commissioner Of Income- M/S Pebble Bay Developers Tax-13(1)(2), Pvt. Ltd., 2Nd Floor, Room No. 218, Vs. Raheja Chambers, Linking Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Road, Main Avenue Santacruz Mumbai-400020. (West), Mumbai-400054. Pan No. Aaccg 1645 E Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Ms. Vranda Matkari, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Nishit Gandhi, Ar Date Of Hearing : 26/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/10/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Nishit Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda Matkari, DR
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 69C

…the case of ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewaldas (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC), Phool in the case of ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewaldas (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC), Phool in the case of ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewaldas (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC), Phool Chand Bajrangl Chand Bajranglal vs. ITO (1993) 203 ITR 456 (SC), ITO vs. Select al vs. ITO (1993) 203 ITR 456 (SC), ITO vs. Select Pvt. Ltd. (1996) 217 ITR 597, 599 (SC) and Dalurband Coal Company Dalurband Coal Company Pvt. Ltd. (1996) 217 ITR 597, 599 (SC) and Central Province Manganese Ore Company Ltd. Vs. ITO (1991) ITR 662, Central Province Manganese Ore Company Ltd. Vs. ITO (1991) ITR 662, Central…

Keystone Realtors Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 2(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 951/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Naresh KumarFor Respondent: Sh. Anil. S. Sant, Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 132(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

…xistence of reason is enough in this regard; reliance is placed on following case laws of the Apex Court. a. Kalyanji Maji & Co. v/s CIT (SC) 102 ITR 287 b. ITO v/s Lakhmani Mewal Das (SC) 103 ITR 437 c. Phool Chand Bajrang Lal and Another v/s ITO & Anr. (SC) 203 ITR 456 d. Sri Krishna (P) Ltd. v/s CIT (SC)221 ITR 538 e. Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v/s ITO (SC) 191 ITR 662 Apart from above facts emerging in this case, there are various case laws which support reopening of assessment on similar facts Same of there are being quoted below for ready reference: - ITO vs Purshottam Das Bangur 90 Taxmann.co…

Sharad Vithoba Navale, Solapur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle -2 (2), Pune

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 266/PUN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Godarashri Dadasaheb Vithoba Navale Dcit, Central Circle 2(2) At Post Ekhatpur Pune Vs. Taluka - Sangola Distt. Solapur 413307 Pan –Abppn6740E Appellant Respondent Shri Sharad Vithoba Navale Dcit, Central Circle 2(2) At Post Ekhatpur Pune Vs. Taluka - Sangola Distt. Solapur 413307 Pan –Abppn6740E Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Suhas Bora Respondent By: Shri M.G. Jasnani Date Of Hearing: 28.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.08.2022 O R D E R Per S.S. Godara, Jm These Twin Assessees’ As Many Appeals For Assessment Year 2012-13, Arise Against The Cit(A)-12, Pune’S Separate Orders; Both Dated 30.11.2018, Passed In Case Nos. No. Pn/Cit (A)-12/10778/2016-17 & No. Pn/Cit (A)- 12/10800/2016-17, Respectively Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short “The Act”.

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148

…decision cannot, therefore, be taken as an authority on the legal issue which did not even come up for specific adjudication before Their Lordships. As for her reliance on Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Phool Chand Bajrang Lal Vs ITO [(1993) 203 ITR 456], that was case in which Their Lordships concluded that the AO “rightly initiated the reassessment proceedings on the basis of subsequent information, which was specific relevant and reliable, and after recording the reasons for formation of his own belief that in the original assessment proceedings, the assessee had not disclosed the material fa…

Dadasaheb Vithoba Navale, Solapur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle -2 (2), Pune

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 255/PUN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Godarashri Dadasaheb Vithoba Navale Dcit, Central Circle 2(2) At Post Ekhatpur Pune Vs. Taluka - Sangola Distt. Solapur 413307 Pan –Abppn6740E Appellant Respondent Shri Sharad Vithoba Navale Dcit, Central Circle 2(2) At Post Ekhatpur Pune Vs. Taluka - Sangola Distt. Solapur 413307 Pan –Abppn6740E Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Suhas Bora Respondent By: Shri M.G. Jasnani Date Of Hearing: 28.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.08.2022 O R D E R Per S.S. Godara, Jm These Twin Assessees’ As Many Appeals For Assessment Year 2012-13, Arise Against The Cit(A)-12, Pune’S Separate Orders; Both Dated 30.11.2018, Passed In Case Nos. No. Pn/Cit (A)-12/10778/2016-17 & No. Pn/Cit (A)- 12/10800/2016-17, Respectively Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short “The Act”.

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148

…decision cannot, therefore, be taken as an authority on the legal issue which did not even come up for specific adjudication before Their Lordships. As for her reliance on Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Phool Chand Bajrang Lal Vs ITO [(1993) 203 ITR 456], that was case in which Their Lordships concluded that the AO “rightly initiated the reassessment proceedings on the basis of subsequent information, which was specific relevant and reliable, and after recording the reasons for formation of his own belief that in the original assessment proceedings, the assessee had not disclosed the material fa…

Khangaram K Dewasi, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal

ITA 2807/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mr. Khangaram K. Dewasi, Prop. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(3), Of Shreenathji Metal & Alloys, Mumbai-21 Shop No. 5, Sultan Market, Opp. Vs. Ash Krishna Bldg. Andheri Ghatkoper Road, Sakinaka, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400072. Pan No. Aeepd 8897 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Bharat Kumar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Bharat Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mr. Khangaram K. Dewasi, Prop. The DCIT, Central Circle-2(3), Of Shreenathji Metal & Alloys, Mumbai-21 Shop No. 5, Sultan Market, Opp. Vs. ASH Krishna Bldg. Andheri Ghatkoper Road, Sakinaka, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400072. PAN No. AEEPD 8897 C Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Bharat Kumar, AR Revenue by : Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, DR Date of Hearing : 28/06/2022 Date of pronoun…

Khangaram K. Dewasi, Mumbai vs. DCIT- CC-2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal

ITA 2806/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mr. Khangaram K. Dewasi, Prop. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(3), Of Shreenathji Metal & Alloys, Mumbai-21 Shop No. 5, Sultan Market, Opp. Vs. Ash Krishna Bldg. Andheri Ghatkoper Road, Sakinaka, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400072. Pan No. Aeepd 8897 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Bharat Kumar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Bharat Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mr. Khangaram K. Dewasi, Prop. The DCIT, Central Circle-2(3), Of Shreenathji Metal & Alloys, Mumbai-21 Shop No. 5, Sultan Market, Opp. Vs. ASH Krishna Bldg. Andheri Ghatkoper Road, Sakinaka, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400072. PAN No. AEEPD 8897 C Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Bharat Kumar, AR Revenue by : Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, DR Date of Hearing : 28/06/2022 Date of pronoun…

Khangaram K. Dewasi, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal

ITA 2805/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mr. Khangaram K. Dewasi, Prop. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(3), Of Shreenathji Metal & Alloys, Mumbai-21 Shop No. 5, Sultan Market, Opp. Vs. Ash Krishna Bldg. Andheri Ghatkoper Road, Sakinaka, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400072. Pan No. Aeepd 8897 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Bharat Kumar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Bharat Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mr. Khangaram K. Dewasi, Prop. The DCIT, Central Circle-2(3), Of Shreenathji Metal & Alloys, Mumbai-21 Shop No. 5, Sultan Market, Opp. Vs. ASH Krishna Bldg. Andheri Ghatkoper Road, Sakinaka, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400072. PAN No. AEEPD 8897 C Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Bharat Kumar, AR Revenue by : Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, DR Date of Hearing : 28/06/2022 Date of pronoun…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. Shri. Sumir J Hinduja, Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and COs filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1374/BANG/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aacph7291Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aaeph5197H Appellant Respondent C.O. No.48/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1373/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent C.O. No.49/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1374/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Susan Dolores George, D.R. Respondent By : Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R.

For Appellant: Shri Susan Dolores George, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R
Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

…ITA Nos.1373 & 1374/Bang/2012 & CO. Nos.48 & 49/Bang/2013 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 PAN No.AACPH7291Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Ba…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. Shri. Jagadish N Hinduja, Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and COs filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1373/BANG/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aacph7291Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aaeph5197H Appellant Respondent C.O. No.48/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1373/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent C.O. No.49/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1374/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Susan Dolores George, D.R. Respondent By : Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R.

For Appellant: Shri Susan Dolores George, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R
Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

…ITA Nos.1373 & 1374/Bang/2012 & CO. Nos.48 & 49/Bang/2013 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 PAN No.AACPH7291Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Ba…

Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation) vs. Laljibhai Kanjibhai Mandalia

The appeal is allowed and the order passed by the High

C.A. No.-004081-004081 - 2022Supreme Court13 Jul 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)

…r the transaction was genuine or not, if on the basis of subsequent information, the Income Tax Officer arrives at a conclusion, after satisfying the twin conditions prescribed in Section 147(a) of the Act, that the assessee had not 18 (1993) 4 SCC 77 18 made a full and true disclosure of the material facts at the time of original assessment and therefore income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment……..” 18. This Court in a judgment reported as N. Nagendra Rao & Co. v. State of A.P.19, was examining the provisions of Essential Commodities Act, 1955. This Court considering the objec…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(3), Surat vs. Keshri Exports, Surat

In the result, appeals filed by assessees (ITA Nos

ITA 762/SRT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 889 To 893/Ahd/2017 Assessment Years: (2007-08 To 2013-14) (Physical Court Hearing) Keshri Exports, Vs. The Dcit, Circle-3(3), Shreeji Chambers, Sadhina Society, Surat. Varachha Road, Surat-395006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadfk 3785 D (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 916 To 920/Ahd/2017 Assessment Years: (2007-08 To 2013-14) (Physical Court Hearing) The Dcit, Circle-3(3), Vs. Keshri Exports, Surat. Shreeji Chambers, Sadhina Society, Varachha Road, Surat-395006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadfk 3785 D (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 753 To 754/Srt/2018 Assessment Years: (2010-11 To 2013-14) (Physical Court Hearing) The Dcit, Circle-3(3), Vs. Keshri Exports, Surat. Shreeji Chambers, Sadhina Society, Varachha Road, Surat-395006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadfk 3785 D (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 761 To 762/Srt/2018 Assessment Years: (2010-11 To 2014-15) (Physical Court Hearing) Keshri Exports, Vs. The Dcit, Circle-3(3), Shreeji Chambers, Sadhina Society, Surat. Varachha Road, Surat-395006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadfk 3785 D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

…hat the purchases claimed were non-genuine/mere accommodation entry on bogus purchases, and therefore bogus, (clearly meaning that what was disclosed was false and untruthful). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Phul Chand BajrangLal and another vs. ITO 203 ITR 456, was considering the question of reassessment beyond the period of four years in the case of an assessee firm; and had held that in case of acquiring fresh information specific in nature and reliable, relating to the concluded assessment, which went to falsify the statement 889 to 893 & 916 to 920/AHD/2017, 753 to 754 & 761 to 762/SRT/2018 Asses…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(3), Surat vs. Keshri Exports, Surat

In the result, appeals filed by assessees (ITA Nos

ITA 761/SRT/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 889 To 893/Ahd/2017 Assessment Years: (2007-08 To 2013-14) (Physical Court Hearing) Keshri Exports, Vs. The Dcit, Circle-3(3), Shreeji Chambers, Sadhina Society, Surat. Varachha Road, Surat-395006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadfk 3785 D (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 916 To 920/Ahd/2017 Assessment Years: (2007-08 To 2013-14) (Physical Court Hearing) The Dcit, Circle-3(3), Vs. Keshri Exports, Surat. Shreeji Chambers, Sadhina Society, Varachha Road, Surat-395006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadfk 3785 D (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 753 To 754/Srt/2018 Assessment Years: (2010-11 To 2013-14) (Physical Court Hearing) The Dcit, Circle-3(3), Vs. Keshri Exports, Surat. Shreeji Chambers, Sadhina Society, Varachha Road, Surat-395006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadfk 3785 D (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 761 To 762/Srt/2018 Assessment Years: (2010-11 To 2014-15) (Physical Court Hearing) Keshri Exports, Vs. The Dcit, Circle-3(3), Shreeji Chambers, Sadhina Society, Surat. Varachha Road, Surat-395006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadfk 3785 D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

…hat the purchases claimed were non-genuine/mere accommodation entry on bogus purchases, and therefore bogus, (clearly meaning that what was disclosed was false and untruthful). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Phul Chand BajrangLal and another vs. ITO 203 ITR 456, was considering the question of reassessment beyond the period of four years in the case of an assessee firm; and had held that in case of acquiring fresh information specific in nature and reliable, relating to the concluded assessment, which went to falsify the statement 889 to 893 & 916 to 920/AHD/2017, 753 to 754 & 761 to 762/SRT/2018 Asses…