Pr. CIT v. Silver Line

383 ITR 455High Court2016#461 most cited

What is Pr. CIT v. Silver Line authority for?

For reassessment under Section 147, the Assessing Officer must record reasons and communicate them to the assessee. An assessee's participation in proceedings pursuant to a Section 148 notice does not obviate the mandatory requirement of recording and communicating reasons or issuing a Section 143(2) notice.

201

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Pr. CIT v. Silver Line · Section 147 · Section 148 · Section 143(2) · reassessment notice · recording reasons · communication of reasons · assessee participation · procedural defect · mandatory requirement · waiver of notice

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Pr. CIT v. Silver Line

Khanna Industrial Pipes P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 9(2)2, Mumbai

ITA 1845/MUM/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & C.N. Prasadआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita/1845/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2003-04 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Khanna Industrial Pipes Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer-9(2)(2) 11, Satyam, 318, Linking Road Aayakar Bhavan, Marine Lines Vs. Khar(W)`,Mumbai-400 052. Mumbai-400 020. Pan/Gir.No:Aaack 2240 D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By:Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav-Dr Assessee By: Shri Jitendra Singh सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19.01.2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 08.02.2017 आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- अनुसार Challenging The Order,Dated 02/01/2013,Of The Cit (A)-20,Mumbai The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal.Assessee-Company,Engaged In Trading Of Industrial Goods, Filed Its Return Of Income On 28/11/2003,Declaring Total Income At Rs. 24. 35 Lakhs.

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra SinghFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav-DR
Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 292Section 292BSection 80

…any relief. 4.During the course of hearing before us, the Authorised Representative (AR) argued that it was a case of change of opinion, that the AO had not issued notice u/s. 143 (2),that the assessment was not valid. He referred to the case of Silver Line (383 ITR 455) and Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company (308 ITR 38), Balwant Rai Wadhwa (ITA/4806/Del/2010). The Departmental Representative (DR) supported the order of the FAA. 5.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us. We find that initially the return was processed u/s. 143 (1), that later on a notice for reopening the compl…

Ganesh Construction Co., Mumbai vs. ITO WD 19(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1179/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhm/S. Ganesh Construction Co., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Fat No. Bhoomi Tower, A-Wing, Ward- 22 (1) (5), Mumbai Opp. Jain Temple, Santracruz (E), Mumbai 400 055 Pan:Aagfg 3076 L Appellant .. Respondent .. Appellant By Shri C. V. Dharkar, Ar Respondent By .. Shri K. L. Kanak, Sr. Dr .. Date Of Hearing 10-08-2016 Date Of Pronouncement .. 10-08-2016 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Preferred Against The Order Of The Cit (A)- 34, Mumbai In Appeal No.Cit (A)-34/Ito-19(2)(3)/It-223/13-14 Dated 30-12-2014. Assessment Was Framed By The Ito, Ward -19 (2) (3), Mumbai Vide His Order Dated 22-03-2013 For The Assessment Year 2009-10 U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”).

Section 142Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…my attention to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd. [2016] 383 ITR 448 (Delhi). He also referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs Silver Line [2016 383 ITR 455 (Delhi). 4. On the other hand, the learned Sr. DR contested the arguments of the learned Counsel for the assessee that the assessee has filed return or income and even the letter filed by him indicates that the letter means that the original return is to be treated as return filed in lieu of the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act. According to him…

M/S Print-Fab (India) P. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5751/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2003-04 M/S. Print-Fab (India) P. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Ltd., 46/8, 1St Floor, East 14(4), New Delhi Patel Nagar, New Delhi Gir/Pan : Aaccp7299M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Satyen Sethi, Adv. Respondent By Sh. V. R. Sonbhadra, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 21.06.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 27.07.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 12/08/2013 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xvii, New Delhi, For Assessment Year 2003-04, Raising Following Grounds, Which Are Revised On 22.02.2016: 1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xvii, New Delhi [Briefly "The Cit(A)"] Has Erred In Upholding The Reopening Of Assessment Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Briefly "The Act"). 2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Appreciating That The Assessment Was Not Validly Reopened, For No Valid Notice

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ue such notice under Section 143(2). In our view, this contention is bereft of any merits and completely ignores the scheme of the machinery provisions for assessment under the Act. It is now well settled by a number of decisions (See: Pr. CIT Silver Line and 283 CTR 148 (Del), ACIT v. Hotel Blue Moon: 321ITR 362 (SC) and CIT v. PawanGupta: 318 ITR 322 (Del)) that whenever the return filed by an Assessee is not accepted at its face, it is mandatory for the AO has to issue a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act for 7 AY: 2003-04 proceeding further. It is thus not open for the AO to not issue a notice under Secti…