Vijay Harishchandra Patel v. ITO

400 ITR 167High Court2018#5140 most cited

What is Vijay Harishchandra Patel v. ITO authority for?

Reopening of assessment is quashed when the Assessing Officer's belief is based on a factual misconception, such as assuming no return of income was filed when one was already accepted.

23

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Vijay Harishchandra Patel v. ITO · section 148 · reopening of assessment · reason to believe · factual misconception · borrowed satisfaction · assessment procedure · income escaping assessment · notice u/s 148

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 143(3)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 143(2)Section 151

Issues it is cited on

section 148(2)bogus ltcgescapement of incomespecified authorityinterest u/s 234atangible materialsection 50cincome escaping assessmentreason to believesection 50borrowed satisfactionreopening of assessment

Judgments citing Vijay Harishchandra Patel v. ITO

ROHIT MANCHAND,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 5(3)(2), GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5124/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Sh. Raj Kumar, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr.DR
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 50cSection 54

…xation. The second glaring error in reason was that the same entries have been repeated 06 times. It has been held that information recd. from Inv. Wing per se not tangible material-conditions not satisfied-reasstt. invalid." Vijay Haishchandra Patel Vs. ITO 400 ITR 167 (Guj.) Notice issued on ground no return filed for year in question assessee in objections pointing out return filed and income in question disclosed formation of belief on factually incorrect premise-re-asstt. not sustainable - Further, issuing 148 notice without PAN, simply on the basis of Non-PAN Air Information, although PAN is available in…

PREM SINGH,CHAMBA vs. ITO WARD PALAMPUR, PALAMPUR

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 945/CHANDI/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 943/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 944/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 945/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Prem Singh Dcit Circle Palampur बनाम/ The Palace, Chamba Palampur (Hp) - 176061 Vs. Chamba (Hp) -176310 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aampr-8876-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Jain (Ca) - Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Vinod Kumar Chaudhary (Addl. Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13-11-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee Have Identical Facts. First, We Take Up Appeal For Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13 Which Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 10-07-2025 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) R.W.S.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Chaudhary (Addl. CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148

…27 Lacs escaped assessment but ultimately accepted the interest income of Rs.57.65 Lacs as offered by the assessee in return of income filed in response to notice issued u/s 148. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Vijay Harishchandra Patel vs. ITO (400 ITR 167), on identical facts, quashed the reopening by observing that the very foundation of reopening would collapse on wrong misconception of facts. The Hon’ble Court further held that since the reopening belief was formed on a factually incorrect premise, the reopening proceedings would not survive. In our opinion, this decision duly supports the case…

PREM SINGH,CHAMBA vs. ITO WARD PALAMPUR, PALAMPUR

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 944/CHANDI/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 943/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 944/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 945/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Prem Singh Dcit Circle Palampur बनाम/ The Palace, Chamba Palampur (Hp) - 176061 Vs. Chamba (Hp) -176310 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aampr-8876-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Jain (Ca) - Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Vinod Kumar Chaudhary (Addl. Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13-11-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee Have Identical Facts. First, We Take Up Appeal For Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13 Which Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 10-07-2025 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) R.W.S.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Chaudhary (Addl. CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148

…27 Lacs escaped assessment but ultimately accepted the interest income of Rs.57.65 Lacs as offered by the assessee in return of income filed in response to notice issued u/s 148. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Vijay Harishchandra Patel vs. ITO (400 ITR 167), on identical facts, quashed the reopening by observing that the very foundation of reopening would collapse on wrong misconception of facts. The Hon’ble Court further held that since the reopening belief was formed on a factually incorrect premise, the reopening proceedings would not survive. In our opinion, this decision duly supports the case…

PREM SINGH,CHAMBA vs. DCIT CIRCLE PALAMPUR, PALAMPUR

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 943/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 943/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 944/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 945/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Prem Singh Dcit Circle Palampur बनाम/ The Palace, Chamba Palampur (Hp) - 176061 Vs. Chamba (Hp) -176310 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aampr-8876-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Jain (Ca) - Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Vinod Kumar Chaudhary (Addl. Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13-11-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee Have Identical Facts. First, We Take Up Appeal For Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13 Which Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 10-07-2025 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) R.W.S.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Chaudhary (Addl. CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148

…27 Lacs escaped assessment but ultimately accepted the interest income of Rs.57.65 Lacs as offered by the assessee in return of income filed in response to notice issued u/s 148. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Vijay Harishchandra Patel vs. ITO (400 ITR 167), on identical facts, quashed the reopening by observing that the very foundation of reopening would collapse on wrong misconception of facts. The Hon’ble Court further held that since the reopening belief was formed on a factually incorrect premise, the reopening proceedings would not survive. In our opinion, this decision duly supports the case…

MO. SHARIPH KURESHI,SIKAR vs. ITO WARD-4 SIKAR, SIKAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 366/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

…shi, Sikar. 1.5 Recently the Honble ITAT Jaipur Bench in the case of Shri Shambhu Dayal Saraf v/s IT in ITA No. 558/Jp/2013 dt02.07.2018 58 TW 355(Jp), has also held the same view copy of order is enclosed 1.6 In the case of Vijay Harish Chandra Patel vs. ITO 400 ITR 167(Guj.) (2018) where it has been held that” When very basis for reopening no longer survives, assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 by AO by issuing notice u/s 148 was without authority of law and could not be sustained. 1.7. Also refer AVG Construction Pvt. Ltd v/s ITO Ward 6(2) Jaipur in ITA no. 90/Jp/2020 dt. 02.09.2021, Shri Shambhu Dayal Saraf v…

ITO, WARD-6(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RAGHUVIR RETAILERS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1129/KOL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyi.T.A. No. 1129/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Income Tax Officer,………………..……………..Appellant Ward-6(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, 6Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 -Vs.- Raghuvir Retailers Pvt. Limited,.……….....Respondent Mandawa Shikhar, 151, Sarat Bose Road, Kolkata-700026 [Pan:Aaecr8231M] Appearances By: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Shri Abhisek Bansal, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ITA No. 1129/KOL/2025 (A.Y. 2012-2013) Raghuvir Retailers Pvt. Limited IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member I.T.A. No. 1129/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Income Tax Officer,………………..……………..Appellant Ward-6(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, 6th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 -Vs.- Raghuvir Retailers Pvt. Limited,.……….....Respondent Mandawa Shikhar, 151, Sarat Bose Road, Kolkata-700026 [PAN:AAECR8231M] Appearances by: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Sr. D.R., appeared on behalf of the Revenue Sh…

MANGILAL DATLA,BANSWARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD BANSWARA, BANSWARA

ITA 304/JODH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

…ded, in fact, ignored the fact that the sale consideration as per the sale deed was Rs. 50 lakhs and that the assessee had by filing the return offered his share of such proceeds by way of capital gain." 1.2.2 In the case of Vijay Harish Chandra Patel vs. ITO 400 ITR 167(Guj.) (2018) where it has been held that” When very basis for reopening no longer survives, assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 by AO by issuing notice u/s 148 was without authority of law and could not be sustained. However the ld. AO nowhere stated that what documents he was having with him at the time of recording the reason for the information…

RAMA SHANKER PAREEK,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO. 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 253/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2025AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 69CSection 80C

…, in fact, ignored the fact that the sale\nconsideration as per the sale deed was Rs.50 lakhs and that the assessee had by\nfiling the return offered his share of such proceeds by way of capital gain.\"\n1.2.2 In the case of Vijay Harish Chandra Patel vs. ITO 400 ITR 167(Guj.) (2018)\nwhere it has been held that” When very basis for reopening no longer survives,\nassumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 by AO by issuing notice u/s 148 was without\nauthority of law and could not be sustained.\nHowever the ld. AO nowhere stated that what documents he was having with him\nat the time of recording the reason for the inform…

DINESSH KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD4(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1393/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Shivangi Chopra, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

…possess jurisdiction to put to tax any other\nincome which subsequently came to his notice, in the course of the proceedings,\nwhich was found by him to have escaped assessment.\n\nHon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Vijay Harish\nChandra Patel vs. ITO 400 ITR 167 (Guj.) (2018)\n\" Held that When very basis for reopening no longer survives, assumption of\njurisdiction u/s 147 by AO by issuing notice u/s 148 was without authority of law\nand could not be sustained.\"\n\nNadeem Hasan vs. ITO, Ward-46(4), New Delhi in ITA No.445/Del/2020\ndated 18.05.2022 ITAT, Delhi:\n\n14. On going through the reasons recor…

SOMNATH KONDURU,UNITED STATES vs. I.T.O (INT TAXN)-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 179/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA K C DevdasFor Respondent: Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 144Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(2)Section 144C(5)Section 148

…f the Act dated 29.03.2021 and consequential assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is illegal and liable to be quashed. In this regard, he relied upon decision of Hon’ble High court of Gujarat in the case of Vijay Harishchandra Patel vs. ITO [2018] 400 ITR 167 (Guj.) and also decision of ITAT, Hyderabad Bench in the case of Mrs. Tahera Abida Ghori vs. Dy.CIT-2, Intl. Taxation, Hyderabad in ITA-IT.No. 777/Hyd./2020, dated 29.12.2023. 7 ITA.No.179/Hyd./2024 9. Shri B. Bala Krishna, learned CIT-DR, on the other hand, supporting the order of the learned DRP submitted that, the assessee is a non-resident an…

ACIT-19(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M NALIN & CO, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s cross objection No

ITA 684/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeacit-19(1), Mumbai Vs M Nalin & Co 5Th 805,8Th Floor, Prasad Chambers, 506, Floor, Piramal Chambers, Parel, Mumbai-400 Tata Road No.02, Opera House 012 Mumbai-400 004 Pan: Aaafm3223H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Shri. R.R Makwana, Addl.CIT
Section 14Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…The impugned notice dated 3-10-1997 (Annexure R) is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs.” 5. The Ld.AR respectfully, relied on the order of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Vijay Harishchandra Patel vs. ITO (2018) 400 ITR 167 (Guj). The observations of the Hon’ble Court is reproduced as below:- “10. As is apparent on a plain reading of the reasons recorded, the very basis for reopening the assessment is that the petitioner had not filed any return of income disclosing such sale of the immovable property valued at Rs. 40,00,000. The record of the case shows that earlie…

SHALINI JAGWAYAN,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 4(4), JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 987/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2025AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-VH
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 69

…for reopening as per assessment order and as per the ld.\nCIT(A) itself wrong, incorrect and without material and all together reverse then all the\nproceedings are void ab-initio and liable to be quashed.\n\nIn the case of Vijay Harish chandra Patel vs. ITO 400 ITR 167(Guj.) (2018)\nwhere it has been held that” When very basis for reopening no longer survives,\nassumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 by AO by issuing notice u/s 148 was without authority\nof law and could not be sustained.\n\nRecently the Honble ITAT Jaipur Bench Jaipur in the case of Smt. Sushila\nChahch v/s ITO in ITA No. 683/Jp/2019 dt. 30.03.2021…

OM PRAKASH AGRAWAL HUF,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(1), JAIUPR, JAIPUR

ITA 967/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2024AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Sh. Sarwan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

…ITA No. 967/JPR/2024 Om Prakash Agrawal HUF vs. ITO आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, "SMC" JAIPUR श्री संदीप गोसाई, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री राठौड कमलेश जयंतभाई, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 967/JPR/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Om Prakash Agrawal HUF 11 OM Niwas, Brahmpuri (Opp. Pondrik Park), Jaipur बनाम Vs. ITO, Ward 5(1), Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAAHO 4615 F अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निधर्धारिती की ओर से / A…

SUVA LAL PAHARIA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(3), JAIPUR

ITA 157/JPR/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2024AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta (Adv.) &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Chaudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 144Section 147Section 5

…rded, in fact, ignored the fact that the sale consideration as per the sale deed was Rs. 50 lakhs and that the assessee had by filing the return offered his share of such proceeds by way of capital gain. 2.2.2 In the case of Vijay Harish Chandra Patel vs. ITO 400 ITR 167(Guj.) (2018) where it has been held that” When very basis for reopening no longer survives, assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 by AO by issuing notice u/s 148 was without authority of law and could not be sustained. However the ld. AO nowhere stated that what documents he was having with him at the time of recording the reason for the information…

STANDARD TELE TOWERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-24(2), NEW DELHI

ITA 9761/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…f that income has escaped assessment: • Dr. Ajit Gupta vs. ACIT, (2016) 383 ITR 361 (Del). • Shipra Srivastava & Anr vs. ACIT, (2009) 319 ITR 221 (Del). • Mumtaz Haji Mohmad Memon vs. ITO, (2018) 408 ITR 268, (Guj). • Vijay Harishchandra Patel vs. ITO, (2018) 400 ITR 167(Guj). • Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare India Ltd. vs. ACIT, (2014) 360 ITR 427(Guj). • Balkrishna Hiralal Wani vs. ITO (2010) 321 ITR 519 (Bom). • Prashant Joshi vs. ITO, (2010) 324 ITR 154 (Bom). 6.2 Furthermore, reliance is also placed on the following judicial decisions 8 Standard Tele Towers P. Ltd. wherein it has been held that there has t…

SUCCESS INTERNATIONAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD- 51(4), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

ITA 7301/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharmasuccess International, Vs. Ito, C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates, Ward-51(4), Ca L-7A, )Lgf), South Extn, New Delhi Part-Ii, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaxfs3915K

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69C

…tments Pvt. Ltd ITa NO. 1579/Del/2019, SNG Developers Ltd 404 ITR 312 (Del), Ankita A. Choksey Vs. ITO & Ors 411 ITR 207, M/s. KLA Foods (India) Ltd & Ors ITA No. 2846/Del/2015, PCIT Vs. RMG Polyvinyal (I) Ltd 396 ITR 5 (Del), Vijay Haishchandra Patel Vs. ITO 400 ITR 167, Shree Balkishan Agarwal Glass Industries Ltd ITA No. 5798/Del/2016 Success International Vs. ITO, 7. Referring to the copy of approval u/s 151 available at page 3 of the paper book it was submitted that ld Pr. CIT has given mechanical approval without application of mind. As with regard to mechanical sanction of reopening he relied on the judgme…

SH. HAFIZUDDIN HAZI,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 3690/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2022AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar, CA &For Respondent: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 150(2)Section 151(2)Section 154

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : C : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2006-07 Hafizuddin Hazi, Vs ITO, C/o Raj Kumar & Associates, CA, Ward-48 (2), L-7A (LGF), South Extn., Part-2, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN: AAQPH6525F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Raj Kumar, CA & Shri Sachin Kumar, CA Revenue by : Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 18.11.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 16.02.2022 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29th March, 2016…

SHRI KAILASH CHAND YADAV,SIKAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD, NEEMKATHANA

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 173/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 173/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2014-15 Shri Kailash Chand Yadav, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. S/O-Shri Chhotu Ram Yadav, Ward-Neemkathana Dhani Amar Singh Wali Mundru, Tehsil-Srimadhopur, Sikar. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aiupy 2977 J Appellant Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 25/06/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 30/06/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur Dated 23/01/2019 For The A.Y. 2014-15. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. The Impugned Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Rws 147 Dated 19/12/2017 As Well As The Action Taken U/S 147/148 By The Ld. Ao Are Bad In Law, Invalid, Illegal & On Facts Of The Case, For Want Of Jurisdiction, Barred By Limitation & Various Other Reasons & Hence The Same May Kindly Be Quashed. 2. Rs.13,00,000/-: The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Law As Well As On The Facts Of The Case In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 13,00,000/- Made By The Ld. Ao On Account Of Cash Deposit Without Invoking Any Provision Of The It Act & By Ignoring The Material Evidences On Assumption Or Suspicion. Hence The Addition So Made By The Ld. Ao & Sustained By 2

For Appellant: Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234

…d. Vide reasons recorded (PB2).” However the assessee has not deposited Rs. 26.00 but deposited only Rs.13.00 admittedly. Thus when the very reasons are wrong or incorrect then all the proceedings are invalid. In the case of Vijay Harish Chandra Patel vs. ITO 400 ITR 167(Guj.) (2018) where it has been held that” When very basis for reopening no longer survives, assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 by AO by issuing notice u/s 148 was without authority of law and could not be sustained. Hence when the reason for reopening itself wrong, incorrect and without material and altogether reverse then all the proceedings are…

KRISH IMPEX PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-14(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7610/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Gupta, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68Section 69

…is contention, he strongly relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs. RMG Polyvinyal (I) Ltd., 396 ITR 5 (Del) and judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Vijay Haishchandra Patel Vs. ITO as reported in 400 ITR 167 (Guj.); and S.N.G. Developers Ltd., 404 ITR 312 (Del) and catena of other judgments. 6 I.T.A. No.7610 /DEL/2019 6. On the other hand, ld. DR submitted that in the ITD system return filed, return of income filed by the assessee was not reflected and the Assessing Officer could have only verified by the ITD system. Otherwise also, from the perusa…

ANURAG,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), GHAZIABAD

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

ITA 1023/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhui.T.A. No. 1023/Del/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Anurag, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), E-26, Shastri Nagar, Ghaziabad Meerut Uttar Padesh Pin: 250002 (Pan: Aawpa7602C) (Assessee) (Respondent Assessee By : Shri M.P. Rastogi, Adv. Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : SMC : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 1023/Del/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11 ANURAG, vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), E-26, SHASTRI NAGAR, GHAZIABAD MEERUT UTTAR PADESH PIN: 250002 (PAN: AAWPA7602C) (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri M.P. Rastogi, Adv. Revenue by : Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr. DR. ORDER The Assessee has filed this appeal against the impugned order dated 04.11.2018 passed by the Ld. CIT(A), Ghaziabad on the following grounds:- 1. That there was no valid assumption of jurisdiction u/s. 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1…

Showing 1–20 of 23 · Page 1 of 2