How many judgments cite Sabh Infrastructure Ltd. v. ACIT?

137 judgments on BharatTax cite Sabh Infrastructure Ltd. v. ACIT (398 ITR 198), spanning 2018 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Sabh Infrastructure Ltd. v. ACIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 147, Section 148, Section 143(3), Section 151, Section 68, Section 69A.

Sabh Infrastructure Ltd. v. ACIT

398 ITR 198High Court2017#742 most cited

What is Sabh Infrastructure Ltd. v. ACIT authority for?

Sanction under Section 151 granted in a mechanical manner, without application of mind, vitiates reassessment proceedings under Sections 147 and 148. The court also laid down guidelines for the Revenue to follow when reopening assessments, emphasizing the need to provide reasons and approval documentation to the assessee.

137

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Sabh Infrastructure Ltd. v. ACIT · section 147 · section 148 · section 151 · mechanical sanction · non-application of mind · reassessment proceedings · reopening assessment guidelines · reasons for reopening · approval of superior officer · vitiated proceedings · true and full disclosure

Also reported as

99 Taxmann.com 409

Sections most often in play

Section 147 Section 148 Section 143(3)Section 151 Section 68 Section 69A Section 139(1)Section 153C

Issues it is cited on

amp expenditure material facts necessary for assessment section 148(2)true and full disclosure borrowed satisfaction sanction under section 151 section 92ba live link first proviso to section 147 non application of mind third party information sanctioning authority

Judgments citing Sabh Infrastructure Ltd. v. ACIT

Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Bareilly vs. I.T.O. 2(3), Bareilly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 108/LKW/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshrarajesh Kumar Gupta Ito-2(3) V. C606, Patel Nagar, Barelly- C.R. Building, Civil Lines, 243001. Barelly-243001. Pan:Agupg2877M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri A. P. Sinha, Adv Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 25 11 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri A. P. Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl

Section 147Section 69A

…r book containing the following particulars was filed from the assessee’s side: - SI. Particulars No 1 Copy of charge sheet bearing No. RC 08/2012/NIA/DLI. 2 Case law – Sabh Infrastructure Ltd vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Delhi High Court) (2017) 398 ITR 198-208 3 Copy of National Investigation Agency, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, report which pertains to some other person and not to the appellant. Page 3 of 6 2.1 Written submissions dated 15.07.2024 were also filed from the office of the Departmental Representative, containing the following Annexure: - Page 4 of 6 3. At the time…

Smt. Sudha Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-6(4), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed with no orders to cost

ITA 532/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary,JCIT-DR

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…sale and further AO had not independently applied his mind to said information received to come to the conclusion that transaction in question was only a paper transaction, impugned reopening notice was to be quashed. Sabh Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2017) 398 ITR 198 (Del.) (HC) Where the reasons make a reference to another document, whether as a letter or report, such document and/ or relevant portions of such report should be enclosed along with the reasons. Deepraj Hospital Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (2018) 65 ITR 663 (Agra) (Trib.) If the reopening is based on information received from the investigation dept., the…

Kalindee Estates Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

ITA 770/JPR/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Oct 2024AY 2010-2011

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

…belief with regard to evation of tax which has escaped assessment. 10. Placing reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Meenakshi Overseas (P) Ltd. 395 ITR 677, G&G Pharma 384 ITR 147, Subh Infrastructure 398 ITR 198 and Pr . CIT Vs. RMC Polyvinyl (I) Ltd. 396 ITR 5 wherein the Delhi High Court has held that observations of the Investigation Wing should not be treated as conclusions without the AO independently verifying the same, in the absence of which the Hon'ble Court held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law. 11. Hence, we hold that the procee…

ACIT, Central Crcle-18, New Delhi vs. Shimmer Developers P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1497/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 150Section 68

…rojected by the Revenue in this appeal viz., the justification for re-opening the assessment under Section 147/148 of the Act." 6.3.5 This issue again came up before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of SABH Infrastructure Limited vs. ACIT, reported as 398 ITR 198 (Delhi), date of order 25.09.2017. It has been held in the aforesaid order at paras 19 & 20. as follows: ”19. Before parting with the case, the Court would like to observe that on a routine basis, a large number of writ petitions are filed challenging the reopening of assessments by the Revenue under Sections 147 and 148 of the Act and despite nu…

Gemco International, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed with no order as to cost

ITA 410/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Bhargava, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary,JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153C

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, ‘’SMC” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 410/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/s. Gemco International cuke The ITO Vs. 3950, Lal Haweli, MSB Ka Rasta Ward 2(1) Johari Bazar, Jaipur 302 003 Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAJFG 9238 R vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Vivek Bhargava, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary,JCIT-DR…

Padmavati Agrico (India) Pvt Ltd, Ajmer vs. ACIT Circle - 1, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 702/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh (Addl. CIT)

Section 143Section 147

…elief with regard to evasion of tax which has escaped assessment. 10. Placing reliance on the decisions of Hon’ble jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Meenakshi Overseas (P) Ltd. 395 ITR 677, G&G Pharma 384 ITR 147, Subh Infrastructure 398 ITR 198 and Pr . CIT Vs. RMC Polyvinyl (I) Ltd. 396 ITR 5 wherein the Delhi High Court has held that observations of the Investigation Wing should not be treated as conclusions without the AO independently verifying the same , in the absence of which the Hon’ble Court held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law. 11. Hence, we hold that the proc…

Preet International Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-20(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3600/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarpreet International Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, 240, Ff, Dda Office Complex Circle-20(1), Cycle Market, Jhandewalan New Delhi Extn, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaco9321J Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Adv Ms. Supriya Mehta, Ca Revenue By: Shri Vivek Vardha, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2024

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardha, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…eve that income of the assessee has escaped which has not been conformed to the assesssee company, in the course of assessment proceedings, though in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sabh Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. ACIT reported in 398 ITR 198 the same was to be confronted alongwith reasons wherein it has been held as under: "(iii) where the reasons make a reference to another document, whether as a letter or report, such document and / or relevant portions of such report should be enclosed alongwith the reasons." 6.3.1 Hence in the absence of such material, the allegation and assumpti…

Anchita Properties Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-12(1), Kolkata.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 637/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 637/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………….……Respondent Ward-12(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 & I.T.A. No. 1067/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,…Respondent Pcit, Kolkata-2, Office Of The Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(1), Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 68

…uthorities raised multiple submissions qua challenging the reopening of assessment. Before adverting to the reasons, he brought to our notice the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sabh Infrastructure Limited -vs.- ACIT reported in [2017] 398 ITR 198 (Del.). He submitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court has dismissed the SLP against this judgment. In this judgment, Hon’ble Delhi High Court has propounded the procedure, which ought to be followed by the revenue authorities 10 & Anchita Properties Pvt. Ltd. while reopening of the assessment. The paragraph no. 19 of this judgment deserves to be tak…

Anchita Properties Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. P.C.I.T., Kolkata - 2, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1067/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Aug 2024AY 2013-2014

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 68

Rajesh Khanna, Neelkanth Plywood, Yamunanagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Yamunanagar

In the result, the assessee's appeal in ITA

ITA 62/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT Sr.DR

Section 148Section 69A

…discussed order of the ld. CIT(A). It is trite that the assessee must be provided all the material relied on to reopen the case and to make any additions in the reopened assessment. 25. In “SABH Infrastructure Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax”, 398 ITR 198 (Delhi), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has laid down guidelines, inter-alia. that where the ITA 62, 230/CHD/2024 & S.A.11/CHD/2024 A.Y.2018-19 35 reasons to believe escapement of income make a reference to another document, whether as a lettr or a report, such document and/or relevant portion of such report should be enclosed alongwith the reason…

Income Tax Officer, Yamuna Nagar vs. Rajesh Khanna, Yamuna Nagar

In the result, the assessee's appeal in ITA

ITA 230/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT Sr.DR

Section 148Section 69A

Srujitha Annapareddy, Secunderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 253/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.253/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Smt. Surjitha Annapareddy Vs. Income Tax Officer Secunderabad Ward 12(1) Pan:Bnwpa6703L Hydrabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Y Srikanth Reddy, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 22/05/2024

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Y Srikanth Reddy, DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…396 ITR 5(Del), Principal CIT Vs. Meenakshi Overseas (P) Ltd (2017) 1254 DTR (Del) 100 : (2017) 395 ITR 677 (Del.) CI vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd (2010) 233 CTT (Del)69; (2010) 41 DTR (Del) 98: (2010) 325 ITR 285 (Del), SABH Infrastructure Ltd vs. ACIT (2017) 398 ITR 198(Del), Future Tech IT Systems (P) Ltd vs. Income Tax Officer (2021) 89 ITR (Trib) 676 and Century Fiscal Services Ltd vs. Income Tax Officer (2021) 210 TTJ (Chd)(UO) 26 followed”. 10. In this view of the matter and by following the decision of Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal at Chandigarh, I am of the considered opinion that reopening of the asse…

Deepak Manaji Bhosale, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Office-32(1)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 3891/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Ms. Padmavathy Sdeepak Majaji Bhosale, Vs Ito – 32(1)(4) B-2006, Ekta Bhoomi Kautilya Bhavan, Garden-Iii, Datta Pada G Block,Bkc, Road, Borivali (E), Bandra (E), Mumbai-400066. Mumbai-400051. Pan/Gir No. : Aacpb5184C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Mrs.Tejal Kharikar.ARFor Respondent: Shri R.R Makwana.DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

…Assessment Order under Section 144B of the Act is bad in law. 8. On the Facts and in law, the Assessment Order has been passed in gross violation of directs issued by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in SABH Infrastructure Ltd. Vs Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax 398 ITR 198 (Delhi) and Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd. Vs Asst. Deepak Manaji Bhosale, Mumbai. Commissioner of Income Tax 443 ITR 127 (Bombay). The impugned order ought to be quashed and cancelled. 9. On the facts of the case and in law, the Ld. A.O. completed the assessment proceeding without affording any opportunity…

Anavya Investments Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-2(4), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4828/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshm/S. Anavya Investments Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, C/O. Sanjay & Sanjay, A-1-A, 14B, Ward-2(4), Janakpuri, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aahc4820A Assessee By : Shri Sanjay Garg, Ca Shri Akarsh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 08/04/2024

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…eve that income of the assessee has escaped which has not been conformed to the assesssee company, in the course of assessment proceedings, though in view of the judgment of Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sabh Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. ACIT reported in 398 ITR 198 the same was to be confronted alongwith reasons wherein it has been held as under: “(iii) where the reasons make a reference to another document, whether as a letter or report, such document and / or relevant portions of such report should be enclosed alongwith the reasons.” 6.3.1 Hence in the absence of such material, the allegation and assumpti…

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 148/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…impugned order. It is well settled that the case of the Commissioner cannot be improved upon by the DR. Reference, in this regard, can be made to “CIT v.Jagadhiri Electric Supply & Industrial Co.” 140 ITR 490 (P&H), “M/s Sabh Infrastructure Ltd. vs. ACIT”,398 ITR 198 (Del) and “Sarogi Credit Corporation v. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bihar” 03 ITR 344 (Patna). 39.2 In view of the above, finding that in this matter, the revisionary proceedings, culminating in the impugned order are not sustainable in law, the case looked at from any angle. Accordingly, the grievance of the assessee in this regard is justif…

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 147/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 146/CHANDI/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

Lovely Promoters Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer

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

ITA 770/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Taparia (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT) a

Section 127Section 127(1)Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 153C

…e cannot prove that the assessee failed to disclose fully and truly all the material the assumption of charge u/s. 147 and 148 is erroneous. To drive home this contention the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Sabh Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. ACIT 398 ITR 198 and South Yarra holding vs. ITO 2019(3)TMI 582. Referring to the notice issued u/s. 148 (APB78) the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the notice which is required to be issued by 31.03.2021 is ultimately issued on 01.04.2021 and the same is time barred and therefore, even on this count the re-opening notice issued is time barred. In support o…

Vayoo Nandan Finance Company Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 26(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3097/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshm/S. Vayoo Nandan Finance Vs. Ito, Company Pvt. Ltd, Ward-26(2), B-6, Ganpati Apartment, 6, New Delhi Alipur Road, Civil Lines, New Delhi Pan: Aaavc0737F Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Shrey Jain, Adv Revenue By: Ms. Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/01/2024

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr. DR

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

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. Vayoo Nandan Finance Vs. ITO, Company Pvt. Ltd, Ward-26(2), B-6, Ganpati Apartment, 6, New Delhi Alipur Road, Civil Lines, New Delhi PAN: AAAVC0737F Assessee by : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Shrey Jain, Adv Revenue by: Ms. Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 04/01/2024 Date of pronouncement 23/01/2024 O R D E R 1. The appeal in ITA No.3097/Del/2019 arises out of the order of CIT(A-16, Nw Delhi [hereinafter referred to as „ld. CIT(A)‟, in short] in Appeal No. 10185/2018-19 dated 28.02.2019 against th…

Geeta Devi Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(4), Jaipur

ITA 396/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234A

…atory in nature. Therefore, the non-supply of the material referred to in the reasons to believe would be enough to render the proceedings bad, even though the material for forming the opinion may be sufficient. —Sabh Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Asstt. CIT (2017) 398 ITR 198 (Del) and Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd. vs. Asstt. CIT & Ors. (2022) 325 CTR (Bom) 575 : (2022) 212 DTR (Bom) 55 relied on. Shorn of all other technical aspects which may have been raised the very fact that the material referred to in the "reasons to believe" was not supplied to the assessee, the entire proceedings for the reopening of the…