Sheo Nath Singh v. AAC

82 ITR 147Supreme Court of India1971#793 most cited

What is Sheo Nath Singh v. AAC authority for?

To initiate reassessment under Section 147/148, the Income Tax Officer must have an honest and reasonable 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment, based on cogent grounds and not mere suspicion. Reassessment is invalid if based only on a lack of analysis during the original assessment without new material.

129

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,368 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Sheo Nath Singh v. AAC · 82 ITR 147 · Section 147 · Section 148 · reason to believe · income escaping assessment · reopening of assessment · mere suspicion · cogent grounds · lack of analysis · reassessment validity · mechanical approval

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 139(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 151Section 131Section 144

Issues it is cited on

live linkthird party informationsection 148(2)jdasection 158bcreason to believeescapement of incomekelvinatorinterest u/s 234aincome escaping assessmentreopening of assessmentchange of opinion

Judgments citing Sheo Nath Singh v. AAC

Vinod K Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 1264/MUM/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: S/s. Saboo & Deepak S. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

…ecific facts. The Hon'ble Apex court has held that the court can always examine this aspect (Le. formation of belief) though the declaration or sufficiency of the reasons for the belief cannot be investigated by the court. Shri Vinod K. Shah {(Sheo Nath Singh 82 ITR 147)(SC) : Bhagwan Industrial P.Ltd. 31STC 293 (SC):} 2.4.12 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. VS. ITO 236 ITR 34, 35 (SC) has held that for determining whether initiation of reassessment proceedings was valid, it has only to be seen whether there was prima facie some material on the basis of which the department could re…

M/S. Mehta Realtors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1633/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. V.P. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 3Section 68Section 69C

…ness. No material which led the AO to form a belief of escapement was confronted to the assessee before initiating the proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act. Reliance is placed on plenty of decisions as under : 6 ITA No.1633/Del. 2013 (i). Sheo Nath Singh v. AAC 82 ITR 147 (SC) (ii). Sarthak Securities Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (2010) 329 ITR 110 (Del) (iii) CIT v. G & G Pharma India Ltd. (2016)384 ITR 147(Del). (iv). Advance India Project Ltd. v. ACtT, ITA No.54/Del/2015 decided on 14.08.2015 – ITAT (v). Jiten Gurnani v. ITO, ITA No.4908/Del/2012 decided on 31.03.2015 – ITAT. (vi). Chanderiya Real Estate (P) Ltd. v. ACI…

The Sri Kannikaparameshwari Co-Op Bank Limited, Davangere vs. Income-Tax Officer, Davangere

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1364/BANG/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Sept 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri A.K.Garodia, Accounant Member

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, CAFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80PSection 80P(2)

…He also submitted that under these facts, re-opening is based on change of opinion and therefore, not valid. In support of this contention, he placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements a) Sheo Nath Singh Vs Appellate Asst. Commissioner of IT 82 ITR 147(SC) b) CIT Vs Orient Crafts Ltd., 354 ITR 536(Del.) c) CIT Vs Ramakrishna Hegde 326 ITR 347(Kar.) 4. The ld. DR of the revenue supported the orders of the authorities below. 5. I have considered the rivals submissions. First, I reproduce the reasons recorded by the AO for re-opening which are available on page- 189 of the paper book. 3 ITA No.…

Jayant Manilal Gandhy, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 16(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4504/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2005-06 Jayant Manilal Gandhy, Acit, Delux Apartment, Circle-16(2), बनाम/ Altamount Road, Matru Mandir Bldg. Vs. Mumbai-400026 Nana Chowk, Mumbai-400007 Pan No. Afupg3313H ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 53ESection 54ESection 56

…ssee were considered and following the decision in Shri Krishna Pvt. Ltd. 221 ITR 538 (SC), wherein, it was held that every disclosure is not 6 Jayant Manilal Gandhy and cannot be treated to be true and full disclosure, another decision in Sheo Nath Singh 82 ITR 147 (SC), Bhagwan Industrial Pvt. Ltd. 31 STC 293 (SC), Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. vs ITO 236 ITR 34, Consolidated Photo and Finvest Ltd. vs ACIT 281 ITR 394 (Del.), Kantamani Venkata Narain & Sons (1967) 63 ITR 638 (SC), Malagaon Electricity Company Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT 78 ITR 466 (SC), CIT vs Manoranjan Pictures Corporation 228 ITR 202 (Del.) and v…

Smt. Chaya Sinha, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Faridabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2462/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shria.T.Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh.Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh Susan George, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)

…To this limited extent, the action of the Income-tax Officer instarting proceedings under section 34 of the Act is open to challenge in a court of law (see Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR191 (SC))." 13. In SheoNath Singh v. AAC of I. T. [1971] 82 ITR 147 (SC) the Supreme Court (Hegde J.) observed as under (page 153) : "There can be no manner of doubt that the words 'reason to believe' suggest that the belief must be that of an honest and reasonable person based upon reasonable grounds and that the Income- tax Officer may act on direct or circumstances evidence but not on mere suspicion, gossip or…

Fibres & Fabrics International P Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circel-11(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 1352/BANG/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Feb 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Fibres & Fabrics International Pvt. Ltd. No.21, E-1, 2Nd Phase, Peenya Industrial Area, Bangalore-560058. … Appellant Pan: Aaacf 6841 M Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(3), Bangalore. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 147Section 253Section 32(1)(ii)

…on mere suspicion. He further submitted that the validity of re- assessment proceedings has to be tested only based on the reasons recorded. In support of this proposition, he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sheonath vs. ACIT (82 ITR 147) and the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. ACIT (268 ITR 332). He Page 13 of 37 further submitted that based on the reasons recorded, re- assessment proceedings cannot be upheld, as the reasons recorded only lead to a suspicion and not to reasons to believe. In support of this proposition, he relied on the decis…

M/S Veena Enterprises Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2517/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. H. S. Sidhu, Jm Ita No. 2517/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 M/S Veena Enterprises Ltd., Vs Assistant Commissioner Of 81, Vigyan Vihar, Income Tax, Circle 17(1), New Delhi-110092 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacv3918K Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Sh. Rohit Garg, Fca Sh. Deepesh Jain, Ca & Sh. Udit Naresh, Adv. Revenue By: Sh. J. P. Chandrakar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.07.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2015 Order Per N.K. Saini, A.M. This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.01.2013 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-19, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Sh. Rohit Garg, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. J. P. Chandrakar, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148

…lowing case laws: " Johri Lal (HUF) Vs CIT (1973) 38 ITR 439 (SC) " ITO Vs Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC) " CIT Vs T S PLP Chidambaram Chattier (1971) 80 ITR 467 (SC) " H A Hanji & CO. Vs ITO (1979) 120 ITR 593 (Cal) " Sheo Nath Sing Vs AAC (1971) 82 ITR 147 (SC) " Shri Krishna (P) Ltd. Vs ITO (1996) 221 ITR 538 (SC) " Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. Vs ITO (1999) 236 ITR 34 (SC) " S. Narayanppa Vs CIT (1967) 63 ITR 219 at page 222 (SC) " Ganga Saran & Sons (P) Ltd. Vs ITO (1981) 130 ITR 1 (SC) " Phool Chand Bajrang Lal Vs ITO (1993) 203 ITR 456 at 477 (SC) 7 Veena Enterprises Ltd. 6. The AO did not find…

Jeans Knit Private Limited vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

WP/13174/2013HC Karnataka23 Jul 2013

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Ram Mohan Reddy Writ Petition No.13174/2013 (T-It)

Section 10Section 10BSection 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

…in Annexure-G are susceptible to suspicion, gossip and rumour, hence not sustainable. 11. Learned counsel places reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd., 3 82 ITR 147 11 Bombay vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City-III, Bombay4 in support of his submission that, “the transfer”, to take out the new undertaking out of purview of sub-section (1) of Section 10B of the Act must be such that, but for transfer, the new undertaking could not have come into being. It is the further submission of t…

The Commissioner of Income Tax-V vs. Orient Craft Ltd

ITA/555/2012HC Delhi12 Dec 2012
Section 10BSection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 260ASection 28Section 80H

…ITA No.555/2012 Page 1 of 14 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 12th December, 2012 + ITA No.555/2012. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-V ..... Appellant Through: Mr. N. P. Sahni, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Ruchesh Sinha, Advocate. versus ORIENT CRAFT LTD. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Salil Aggarwal with Mr. P. C. Yadav, Advocates CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR R.V.EASWAR,J:…