United Electrical Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT

258 ITR 317High Court2002#249 most cited

What is United Electrical Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Reassessment proceedings under Section 147 cannot be initiated based on general or vague information lacking a specific link to the assessee's transaction, and requires the Assessing Officer to apply an independent mind and form a 'reason to believe' based on reasonable grounds, not mere suspicion.

309

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2026.

Also referred to as

United Electrical Co. v. CIT · Section 147 · Section 148 · reason to believe · reassessment validity · vague information · bogus transactions · independent application of mind · escaped assessment

Also reported as

125 Taxmann 775

Sections most often in play

Section 148Section 143(3)Section 147Section 151Section 153ASection 153DSection 132Section 144

Issues it is cited on

section 10(31a)section 100section 76section 142(2c)section 153b(1)(b)section 144basection 153b(1)rectification under section 154section 158bcsection 2(22)section 206csection 2(22)(e)

Judgments citing United Electrical Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT

Prakash Fatandas Jassuja, Thane vs. ITO WD 3(2), Thane

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4933/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

Section 133ASection 147

…to disclose fully and partially some material facts relevant for assessment (Dr. Amin’s Pathology Laboratory vs JCIT (2001) 252 ITR 673, 682 (Bom.) Identical ratio was laid down by Hon’ble Delhi High court in United Electrical Company Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT (2002) 258 ITR 317, 322 (Del.) and Prafull Chunnilal Patel vs ACIT 236 ITR 832, 838 (Guj.). The essential requirement for initiating reassessment proceeding u/s 147 r.w.s 148 of the Act is that the ld. Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year. The Hon’ble Gujara High Court in Praf…

Gautamchand Kanuga (HUF), Bhiwandi vs. DCIT Cir 1, Kalyan

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

ITA 4260/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2003-04 Shri Gautamchand Kanuga, Dcit, House No.439, Flat No.1, Circle – 1, Kalyan, 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, Sumita Building, Vs. Gokulnagar, Kasarali, Wayale Nagar, Bhiwandi Khadakpada, Pan: Abgpk 2083A Kalyan (W) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2003-04 Shri Gautamchand Kanuga Dcit, (Huf), Bhiwandi Circle – 1, Kalyan, 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, House No.439, Flat No.1, Vs. Sumita Building, Wayale Nagar, Gokulnagar, Kasarali, Khadakpada, Bhiwandi Kalyan (W) Pan: Abgpk 2083A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. P. Daniel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Wanare, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147

…d a satisfaction note not even in brief. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Commissioner has accorded sanction after applying his mind and after recording his satisfaction. 12. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of United Electrical Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT 258 ITR 317 has held that "the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 151 of the Act provides that after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, notice under section 148 shall not be issued unless the Chief Conmiissioner or the Commissioner, as the case may be, is satisfied, on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer conce…

Gautamchand Kanuga, Bhiwandi vs. DCIT Cir 1, Kalyan

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

ITA 4259/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2003-04 Shri Gautamchand Kanuga, Dcit, House No.439, Flat No.1, Circle – 1, Kalyan, 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, Sumita Building, Vs. Gokulnagar, Kasarali, Wayale Nagar, Bhiwandi Khadakpada, Pan: Abgpk 2083A Kalyan (W) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2003-04 Shri Gautamchand Kanuga Dcit, (Huf), Bhiwandi Circle – 1, Kalyan, 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, House No.439, Flat No.1, Vs. Sumita Building, Wayale Nagar, Gokulnagar, Kasarali, Khadakpada, Bhiwandi Kalyan (W) Pan: Abgpk 2083A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. P. Daniel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Wanare, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147

…d a satisfaction note not even in brief. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Commissioner has accorded sanction after applying his mind and after recording his satisfaction. 12. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of United Electrical Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT 258 ITR 317 has held that "the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 151 of the Act provides that after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, notice under section 148 shall not be issued unless the Chief Conmiissioner or the Commissioner, as the case may be, is satisfied, on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer conce…

Anjali Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO, Faridabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2521/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddyay: 2005-06 Anjali Gupta Vs. Ito, Ward 1(3) C/O Raj Kumar & Associates, Cas Faridabad L 7 A South Ex Part 2 New Delhi 110 049 Pan: Abzpg 7500 P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar, C.A. and Sh. Sumit Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. MK Jain, Sr.D.R
Section 10Section 147Section 148Section 151

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC-2’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AY: 2005-06 Anjali Gupta vs. ITO, Ward 1(3) C/o Raj Kumar & Associates, CAs Faridabad L 7 A South Ex Part 2 New Delhi 110 049 PAN: ABZPG 7500 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Raj Kumar, C.A. and Sh. Sumit Goel, C.A. Respondent by : Sh. MK Jain, Sr.D.R. ORDER This is an appeal filed by the Assessee directed against the order dated 31.3.2015 of Ld.CIT(A), Faridabad pertaining to the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2005-06 on the following grounds. 1. That under the facts and circumstances…

M/S. Shri Vardai Ovrseas (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 188/DEL/2010[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2015AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Sabharwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sujit Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 131Section 133Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 68

…r S. 148.” Vardai Overseas (P) Ltd. vs. ITO 10. Under the circumstances and respectfully applying the ratio of the judgments rendered by the Jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs Atul Jain 299 ITR 383 (Delhi), United Electrical Company (P) Ltd vs. CIT & Ors. 258 ITR 317 (Delhi), CIT vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. 325 ITR 285 (Delhi), Sarthak Securities Co. (P) Ltd. vs. ITO 329 ITR 110 (Delhi) and Signature Hotels (P) Ltd. vs. ITO & Anr. 338 ITR 51 (Delhi), we agree with the learned counsel of the assessee that the reopening in this case is bad in law. Accordingly, we hold the reassessment as invalid for both th…

M/S. Shri Vardai Ovrseas (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 187/DEL/2010[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2015AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Sabharwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sujit Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 131Section 133Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 68

…r S. 148.” Vardai Overseas (P) Ltd. vs. ITO 10. Under the circumstances and respectfully applying the ratio of the judgments rendered by the Jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs Atul Jain 299 ITR 383 (Delhi), United Electrical Company (P) Ltd vs. CIT & Ors. 258 ITR 317 (Delhi), CIT vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. 325 ITR 285 (Delhi), Sarthak Securities Co. (P) Ltd. vs. ITO 329 ITR 110 (Delhi) and Signature Hotels (P) Ltd. vs. ITO & Anr. 338 ITR 51 (Delhi), we agree with the learned counsel of the assessee that the reopening in this case is bad in law. Accordingly, we hold the reassessment as invalid for both th…

The Commissioner of Income Tax -III vs. Sri T.C. Reddy

The appeal stands dismissed

ITTA/577/2011HC Telangana28 Feb 2012

…had any rational connection or a live link for the formation of the requisite belief. 12. This Court also had occasion to deal with the issue of reopening a completed assessment in United Electrical Co. P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax and Ors. (2002) 258 ITR 317. This decision has been relied upon by the Tribunal but we find that it is clearly distinguishable because in that case the Division Bench came to the conclusion that the statement on the basis of which reopening was sought was too general and it did not mention any name, much less the name of the assessed. It was, th…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Mr.Vipin Batra

ITA/1189/2006HC Delhi29 May 2007

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAMAJIT SEN

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

…* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI + ITA No. 1189 of 2006 Judgment reserved on: May 9, 2007 % Judgment delivered on: May 29, 2007 Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi-X, New Delhi Appellant Through Mrs. Prem Lata Bansal with Ms. Sonia Mathur, Advocates Versus Vipin Batra D-12, Rana Pratap Bagh New Delhi ...Respondent Through Dr. Rakesh Gupta with Mr. Jitender Saini, Advocates Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to Reporter or not?…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Atul Jain

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/1384/2006HC Delhi23 May 2007

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAMAJIT SEN

Section 148

…– there must be reasons on record which have led him to believe that a notice should be issued. ITA No.1384/2006 Page 8 of 11 15. In United Electrical Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, (2002) 258 ITR 317, this Court considered the entire issue afresh. It was observed that the expression “reason to believe” occurring in Section 147 of the Act is crucial. Reference was made to Bawa Abhai Singh v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (2002) 253 ITR 86 wherein it was observed that “reason to believe” postulates a foundation based on inf…