Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd.

COLEN CHEMICAL PVT. LTD.,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.165 & 167/Ran/2025 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-2014 & 2014-2015) Colen Chemical Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito Ward-1(1), Jamshedpur 1St Floor, Room No.9, Tiwary Bechar Complex, Main Rd. Bistupur, Jamshedpur-831001 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcc 3978 K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ram Chandra Marndi, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07/01/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Both Dated 31.03.2025 For The Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld.Ar That For The Assessment Year 2013- 2014 The Original Assessment Came To Be Completed U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 29/01/2016 & For The Assessment Year 2014-2015 The Original Assessment Came To Be Completed U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 29.12.2016. Notice U/S.148 Of The Act For A.Y.2013-2014 Came To Be Issued On 28.03.2018 & For A.Y.2014-2015 The Notice Was Issued On 24.06.2019. The Ld. Ar Drew Our Attention To Reason Recorded To Reopening For The Assessment Year 2013-2014 At Pages 47 To 51 Of The Paper Book Which Reads As Follows:-

…n (2022) 449 ITR 171(SC) the reopening is liable to be quashed as also the consequential assessment order. 5. In reply, the Ld.CIT DR assisting the Ld.Sr.DR submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brockers Pvt. Ltd. (2008) 14 SCC 208 and the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of P.L.Goenka HUF, passed in ITAT/241/2024 IA No:GA/2/2024, dated 06.05.2025. It was submission that even if the reason recorded are borrowed satisfaction, still it should be held that the reason are valid. It was the submission that the reopening of the assessment is liable to be upheld. 6. We have…

COLEN CHEMICAL PVT. LTD.,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.165 & 167/Ran/2025 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-2014 & 2014-2015) Colen Chemical Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito Ward-1(1), Jamshedpur 1St Floor, Room No.9, Tiwary Bechar Complex, Main Rd. Bistupur, Jamshedpur-831001 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcc 3978 K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ram Chandra Marndi, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07/01/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Both Dated 31.03.2025 For The Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld.Ar That For The Assessment Year 2013- 2014 The Original Assessment Came To Be Completed U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 29/01/2016 & For The Assessment Year 2014-2015 The Original Assessment Came To Be Completed U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 29.12.2016. Notice U/S.148 Of The Act For A.Y.2013-2014 Came To Be Issued On 28.03.2018 & For A.Y.2014-2015 The Notice Was Issued On 24.06.2019. The Ld. Ar Drew Our Attention To Reason Recorded To Reopening For The Assessment Year 2013-2014 At Pages 47 To 51 Of The Paper Book Which Reads As Follows:-

…n (2022) 449 ITR 171(SC) the reopening is liable to be quashed as also the consequential assessment order. 5. In reply, the Ld.CIT DR assisting the Ld.Sr.DR submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brockers Pvt. Ltd. (2008) 14 SCC 208 and the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of P.L.Goenka HUF, passed in ITAT/241/2024 IA No:GA/2/2024, dated 06.05.2025. It was submission that even if the reason recorded are borrowed satisfaction, still it should be held that the reason are valid. It was the submission that the reopening of the assessment is liable to be upheld. 6. We have…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 9 KOLKATA vs. P L GOENKA HUF

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed and the substantial

Bench: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS)

…ing on the assessee. 9. Before we examine the correctness of the decision of the Tribunal, we take note of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Private Limited reported in (2008)14 SCC 208. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Section 147 authorises and permits the assessing officer to assess or reassess income chargeable to tax if he has reason to believe that income for any assessment year has escaped assessment. It was further pointed 6 out that the word “reason” in the phrase “reason to believe” would mean cause or…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. INDRANI PATNAIK

Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA,MR. JUSTICE M.S.SAHOO

…On another issue, learned Counsel appearing for the ED would submit that the learned Appellate Tribunal erred in setting aside the freezing order solely due to the absence of a prosecution complaint 8(2008) 14 SCC 208 92025 SCC OnLine SC 449 10(2023) 12 SCC 1 Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:14.11.2025 17:05:28 Signature Not Verified MISC. APPEAL (PMLA) 4/2021 and 5/2021 Page 8 of 31 against the Respondent, since a complaint had already been filed against her husband…

M/S. JINDAL ALUMINIUM LIMITED vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice B. M. Shyam Prasad

…a relevant test. Relying upon this decision, Sri K.V. Aravind also submits when the two conditions viz., when the assessing officer has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped 5 (2008) 14 SCC 208 20 assessment and escapement is because the assessee has not fully and truthfully disclosed all the relevant material, the AO will have jurisdiction to issue notice under section 148 of the I-T Act. 6.2 Shri K.V. Aravind also emphasizes that the notification dated 06.09.2016 is issued withdrawing the approval granted to M/s…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. SHRI ASHOK AGARWAL HUF

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,REKHA BORANA

…On another issue, learned Counsel appearing for the ED would submit that the learned Appellate Tribunal erred in setting aside the freezing order solely due to the absence of a prosecution complaint 8(2008) 14 SCC 208 92025 SCC OnLine SC 449 10(2023) 12 SCC 1 Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:14.11.2025 17:05:28 Signature Not Verified MISC. APPEAL (PMLA) 4/2021 and 5/2021 Page 8 of 31 against the Respondent, since a complaint had already been filed against her husband…

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI KOUNDINYA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY

Bench: C.PRAVEEN KUMAR,CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

…984) 3 SCC 16 153. (2006) 3 SCC 643 154. (2001) 3 SCC 609 155. 1963 SC 1241 156. AIR 1961 AP 50 157. AIR 1967 SC 944 158. AIR 2005 SC 862 159. (1992) 73 CLT 567 160. 1982) 3 SCC 519 161. (2016) 8 SCC 509 162. (2002) 8 SCC 228 163. (2018) 14 SCC 408 164. (2002) 2 SCC 459 165. (2015) 14 SCC 327 166. (2016) 11 SCC 31 CJ, MSM,J and DVSS,J W.P.Nos.13203 of 2020 & batch 6 167. (1990) 1 SCC 328 168. (1971) 2 SCC 261 169. AIR 1957 Madras 196 170. (2006) 1 ALD 468 171. (1996) ILLJ 1082 AP (FB) 172. 2000 (6) ALD 609 173. (1970) 2 W.LR. 1264 = (1970) A.C. 1136 174. (2003…

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Dr. T.Ravi Kumar,

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 10Th April, 2024. Appearance: Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjay Bhowmick, Advocate Ms. Swapna Das, Advocate … For The Appellant. Ms. Smita Das De, Advocate … For The Respondent. 1. Heard Sri J. P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Advocate Assisted By Sri Sanjay Bhowmick, Learned Counsel For The Appellant/Assessee & Ms. Smita Das De, Learned Senior Standing Counsel For The Respondent. 2. The Assessment Years Involved In The Present Appeal Are Assessment Year 1999-2000 & Assessment Year 2000-01. By Order Dated 16.08.2012, This Appeal Was Admitted On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law :-

…r Section 143(1)(a) of the Act, 1961, yet it was not an assessment order. Reference in this regard may be had to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Private Limited, (2008) 14 SCC 208 (paras 14 to 16) in which Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under : 12 “14. It is to be noted that the expressions "intimation" and "assessment order" have been used at different places. The contextual difference between the two expressions has to be understood in the context the expressions are used. Assessment is used as meaning sometimes "the com…