Shamshad Khan v. ACIT

395 ITR 265High Court2017#3701 most cited

What is Shamshad Khan v. ACIT authority for?

Reopening of assessment is bad in law if the sanctioning authority grants approval based on incorrect figures of income escaping assessment, indicating a non-application of mind.

32

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Shamshad Khan v. ACIT · section 148 · sanction under section 151 · reasons to believe · non-application of mind · incorrect quantification of escaped income · assessment procedure

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 151Section 250Section 132Section 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 285basanction under section 151section 285section 151(1)section 151(2)material facts necessary for assessmentfirst proviso to section 147non application of mindsection 10anon-application of mindlive linkreason to believe

Judgments citing Shamshad Khan v. ACIT

R.S. Shares & Securities Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 20(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 8031/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…udgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Atlas Cycle Industries 180 ITR 319; 2. Judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. SNG Developers Ltd. 404 ITR 312; 3. Judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Shamshad Khan vs. ACIT 395 ITR 265; 4. Judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Siemens Information System Ltd. Vs. ACIT 293 ITR 548. The crux of the above judgments have been that in case incorrect, wrong and non existing reasons are recorded by the 22 ITA.No.8031/Del./2018 AO for reopening of the assessment and that AO failed to verify the information received from Investig…

Vikas Chowdhary, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 36(4), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

ITA 9742/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69

…the Assessing Officer. The Appellate Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and holding that the reopening of the assessment was bad in law.” 6.4. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Shamshad Khan vs., ACIT [2017] 395 ITR 265 (Del.) in which it was held as under : “Held, allowing the petition, that the form for recording the reasons for initiating the proceedings under section 148 of the Act for obtaining approval of the Commissioner itself proceeded on the erroneous basis that the quantum of income which had escaped assessment was Rs.28,75,000 whereas the assessee ha…

Neel Kant Chaudhary, Muzaffarnafar vs. ITO, Ward-2(5), Khatauli

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1135/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: For RevenueFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69A

…se of CIT vs., Atlas Cycle Industries [1989] 180 ITR 319 [P&H], Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs., SNG Developers Ltd., [2018] 404 ITR 312 (Del.), Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Shamshad Khan vs., ACIT [2017] 395 ITR 265 (Del.) and Judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Siemens Information Systems Ltd., vs., ACIT & Others [2007] 293 ITR 548 [Bom.]. It may also be noted here that though A.O. has referred to the commission earned by the assessee in assessment year under appeal, but, no addition have been made in the re-assessment order. Considering th…

Dheeraj Yadav, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward - 46(5), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

ITA 6701/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Anil Chaturvedi

For Appellant: Shri Shantanu Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Sri Prakash Dubey, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 149(1)Section 151(3)Section 69A

…v, Gurgaon. Atlas Cycle Industries [1989] 180 ITR 319 [P&H], Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs., SNG Developers Ltd., [2018] 404 ITR 312 (Del.), Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Shamshad Khan vs., ACIT [2017] 395 ITR 265 (Del.) and Judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Siemens Information Systems Ltd., vs., ACIT & Others [2007] 293 ITR 548 [Bom.]. It may also be noted here that though A.O. has referred to the commission earned by the assessee in assessment year under appeal, but, no addition have been made in the re- assessment order. Consider…

Natrajan Monie, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

ITA 1817/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148

…he Assessing Officer. The Appellate Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and holding that the reopening of the assessment was bad in law.” 6.4. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Shamshad Khan vs., ACIT [2017] 395 ITR 265 (Del.) in which it was held as under : 14 ITA.No.1817/Del./2017 Shri Natrajan Monie, Gurgaon. “Held, allowing the petition, that the form for recording the reasons for initiating the proceedings under section 148 of the Act for obtaining approval of the Commissioner itself proceeded on the erroneous basis that the quantum of income which had esc…

M/S. Shree Balkishan Agarwal Glass Industries Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 5798/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2005-06 Shree Balkishan Agarwal Glass Vs Dcit, Industries Ltd., Circle-8(1), C/O Sarvam & Associates, New Delhi. 403, Klj Tower North, B-5, Netaji Subhash Place, District Centre, Pitampura, Delhi. Pan: Aabcs2870C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suresh Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.09.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…facts that the return of income was not filed 10 whereas it was filed under Section 139. Relying on the following decisions he submitted that the reassessment proceedings should be held as void when the same is based on wrong facts:- i) Shamshad Khan vs ACIT 395 ITR 265 (Del): ii) CIT vs.. Atlas Cycle industries (1989) 180 ITR 319 (P&H); iii Siemens Information System Ltd., vs. ACIT & Others (2007) 293 ITR 548 (Bom); iv) Ankita A. Choksey vs. Income Tax Officer And Others (2019) 411 ITR 207 (Bom); v) DCIT vs M/s KLA Foods (India) Ltd and othrs IT A No.2846/Del/2015 dt: 08.04.2019; vi) Pr CIT vs M/S SNG Develo…

Rmp Holding (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 20(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 7243/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12 Rmp Holding (P) Ltd., Vs Ito, Shop No.9, Plot No.51, Block-C, Ward-20(3), Mahendru Enclave, Near Hans Cinema, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacr5533N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suresh Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri M. Barnwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 5Th August, 2019 Of The Cit(A)-7, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company & Filed Its Return Of Income On 17Th August, 2011, Declaring A Loss Of Rs.20,53,019/-. The Case Was Scrutinized U/S 143(3) On 10Th March, 2014, Determining The Income At Rs.20,06,714/-. Thereafter, On The Basis Of Information Received During The Course Of Search & Seizure Operation In The Case Of Entry Provider Shri Anand Kumar Jain & Shri Naresh Kumar Jain & Subsequent Investigation That The Assessee Is A Beneficiary Of Rs.39,00,055/-, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened By Recording Reasons U/S 147. Subsequently, Notice U/S 148 Was Issued On 26Th March, 2018 After Obtaining Prior Approval Of The Pcit-7, New Delhi. In Response To The Same, The Assessee Filed A Letter Stating That The Return Already Filed U/S 139 May Be Treated As The Return Filed In Response To The Notice U/S 148 Of The Act. However, Another Letter Dated 7Th August, 2018 Was Issued To The Assessee Requesting Him To File The Return In Response To Notice U/S 148 Of The Act. The Assessee Ultimately Filed Its Return On 13Th August, 2018 Declaring A Loss Of Rs.4,053/-. Subsequently, The Ao Issued Notice U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The It Act & Copies Of The Reasons Recorded Were Also Handed Over To The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri M. Barnwal, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 68

…osition, he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pardesi Developers & Infrastructure (P) Ltd. vs. CIT, 220 Taxman 18 (Delhi). 8. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Shamshad Khan vs. ACIT, 395 ITR 265, he submitted that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the said decision has found the variation in the return of income mentioned in the reasons with that of the return submitted by the assessee and quashed the reassessment proceedings on account of non-application of mind. 9. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in…

M/S. Bull Riders Financial Services (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

ITA 1891/DEL/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Shri Somil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

…Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. Appellate Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and holding that the reopening of the assessment was bad in law.” 5.4. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Shamshad Khan vs., ACIT [2017] 395 ITR 265 (Del.) in which it was held as under : “Held, allowing the petition, that the form for recording the reasons for initiating the proceedings under section 148 of the Act for obtaining approval of the Commissioner itself proceeded on the erroneous basis that the quantum of income which had escaped assessment was Rs.28,75,000 whereas the assessee h…

S.N. Arora/Sapra, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 23(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee for the A

ITA 4252/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, C.A. And Shri Satyajeet Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

…he Assessing Officer. The Appellate Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and holding that the reopening of the assessment was bad in law.” 9.3. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Shamshad Khan vs., ACIT [2017] 395 ITR 265 (Del.) in which it was held as under : “Held, allowing the petition, that the form for recording the reasons for initiating the proceedings under section 148 of the Act for obtaining approval of the Commissioner itself proceeded on the erroneous basis that the quantum of income which had escaped assessment was Rs.28,75,000 whereas the assessee h…

S.N. Arora/Sapra, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 23(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee for the A

ITA 4251/DEL/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, C.A. And Shri Satyajeet Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

…he Assessing Officer. The Appellate Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and holding that the reopening of the assessment was bad in law.” 9.3. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Shamshad Khan vs., ACIT [2017] 395 ITR 265 (Del.) in which it was held as under : “Held, allowing the petition, that the form for recording the reasons for initiating the proceedings under section 148 of the Act for obtaining approval of the Commissioner itself proceeded on the erroneous basis that the quantum of income which had escaped assessment was Rs.28,75,000 whereas the assessee h…

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

…himself. Therefore, it shows that Assessing Officer had not applied his mind as the Assessing Officer failed to take into consideration the return filed by the assessee and therefore, relying on the judgment of Hon’ble High Court Shamshad Khan Vs ACIT (2017) 395 ITR 265, the ld. AR submitted that the reason recorded by Assessing Officer does not indicate application of mind. The ld. AR further submitted that non-application of mind and casual approach of Assessing Officer is also apparent from the fact that Assessing Officer held that assessee had contrived losses from Bharat Rasayan Finance Ltd., whereas in the…

Brihpal Singh Tomar, New Delhi vs. ITO, Waqrd-64(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2539/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya[Assessment Year: 2013-14] Shri Brijpal Singh Tomar Vs. The I.T.O C -11/78, Near Dda Nursery Ward 64(1) Yamuna Vihar, Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aoips 9304 M [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.04.2019 Assessee By : Shri Suresh K. Gupta, Fca Revenue By : Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Suresh K. Gupta, FCAFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…he source of capitation fee paid, if any, by issue of notice u/s 133(6) of the Act. However, the Assessing Officer chose to reopen the assessment, which, in my considered opinion, is bad in law. 7. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Shamshad Khan in 395 ITR 265, while allowing the writ petition of the assessee, observed that the initiation of case for reopening of the assessment was erroneous and without application of mind especially since the Assessing Officer had not examined the return filed, which if he had, would have revealed that the assessee had filed regular returns, had sufficient opening bal…