← All Phrases

“reopening of assessment”

ReassessmentSections 147-151Sections 147-1514,262 judgments

The decision most relied on for reopening of assessment is GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO (259 ITR 19), cited in 1,349 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on reopening of assessment

GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO
259 ITR 19 · 2003 · Supreme Court
1,349
citing judgments

When a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is issued, the Assessing Officer is bound to furnish reasons for reopening upon the assessee's request and must dispose of the assessee's objections to the notice by passing a speaking order.

ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd.
291 ITR 500 · 2007 · Supreme Court
1,030
citing judgments

For initiating reassessment proceedings under Section 147, the Assessing Officer needs only prima facie material providing a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. Conclusive proof or the sufficiency/correctness of the material is not required at the stage of issuing the notice under Section 148.

Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO
236 ITR 34 · 1999 · Supreme Court
862
citing judgments

For reassessment proceedings under Section 148, the Assessing Officer only needs prima facie material to have a reason to believe income has escaped assessment. Conclusive proof or evaluation of the sufficiency and correctness of such material is not required at the stage of issuing the notice.

CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd.
216 CTR 195 · 2008 · Supreme Court
854
citing judgments

If an assessee company receives share application money from alleged bogus shareholders and provides their details to the Assessing Officer, no addition can be made under Section 68 in the company's hands; the Department must proceed against the shareholders by reopening their individual assessments.

CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd.
331 ITR 236 · 2011 · High Court
694
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer loses jurisdiction and the entire reassessment becomes invalid if no addition is made in respect of the income that formed the basis of the reopening. Explanation 3 to Section 147 does not permit assessing other escaped income unless an addition is made for the original income forming the reason to believe.

CIT v. RRJ Securities Ltd.
380 ITR 612 · 2016 · High Court
689
citing judgments

Completed assessments can be interfered with under Section 153A or 153C only on the basis of incriminating material unearthed during the search, necessitating a direct correlation between the discovered material and the power to assess or reopen concluded assessments.

Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal
444 ITR 1 · 2022 · Supreme Court
524
citing judgments

Notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income-tax Act between April 1, 2021, and May 4, 2022, must be treated as notices issued under the new Section 148A(b) of the amended law. This requires the Assessing Officer to follow the procedure prescribed under the amended reassessment provisions, including issuing an order under Section 148A(d) before a fresh notice under Section 148.

PCIT v. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd.
395 ITR 677 · 2017 · High Court
471
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings initiated solely based on an investigation wing/appraisal report, without the Assessing Officer's independent application of mind to form a 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment, are beyond jurisdiction, bad in law, and void ab initio.

Judgments citing reopening of assessment

Ava Resources Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central 1(1), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 3401/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 3401/Del/2024, (A.Y.2019-20)

Section 144BSection 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 68

grossly erred in not adjudicating the Grounds of Appeal advocated by the Assessee. (7) The NFAC has not adjudicated the ground of illegal reopening of assessment consequent to which the Assessment Order passed thereto is illegal and bad in law which deserves to be quashed. (8) That ... facts of the case, the reopening of assessment notice under section 148 and order under section 148A(d) having been issued/passed by the Assessing Officer and not the Faceless Assessment Unit contrary to the provisions of section 144B and section 151A of the Act is illegal

Anil Dua, New Delhi vs. PCIT -10, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is, thus, allowed

ITA 1843/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2018-19 Anil Dua Vs. Pcit -10 F-13, Kailash Colony, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110048 Pan :Aacpd8370L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263Section 263(1)Section 54

case of S.M. Overseas Pvt. Ltd. passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court has been considered by us. In that particular case reopening of assessment was found to be not permissible during the pendency of proceedings for rectification particularly when such rectification proceeding has not been shown to have been ... withdrawn. Thus, having regard to this particular aspect of the matter reopening of assessment has been quashed by the ITAT has been restored. Considering the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court the case made out by the assessee that the reopening of assessment upon invoking the revisional

Rajendra Khodidas Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 500/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 500/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2017-18) Rajendrakhodidas Patel Dcit बनाम/ Ambica Bhuvan, Baliya Circle –2(1)(1), Vs. Vas, Amraiwadi Road, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad, Gujarat - 380026 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaspp5754G (Appellant) (Respondent) .. Shriparin S Shah, A.R. अपीलाथ" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondentby: Date Of Hearing 24/10/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 06/11/2024 O R D E R Per Shrinarendra Prasad Sinha, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69C

parte despite of adjournment request filed by the appellant. 3. Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming action of AO reopening of assessment u/s 148 of the Act. 4. Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming addition

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Nungambakkam Chennai vs. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai

ITA 1437/CHNY/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Nov 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon'Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1437/Chny/2024 & Co No.: 46/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner M/S. Cholamandalam Ms Of Income Tax, V. General Insurance Company Non-Corporate Circle -8, Limited, Room No. 507, 5Th Floor, No.2, Dare House, Chenai Annexe Building, G.P.O., Parrys, No. 121, M.G. Road, Chennai - 600 001. Chennai - 600 034. [Pan:Aabcc-6633-K] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (Respondent/Cross Objector) Assessee By : Ms. Kamakshi, Advocate For Mr. Sandeepbagmar, Advocate Department By : Mr.Nilaybaransom, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per S. R. Raghunatha: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Aredirected Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 07.03.2024 & Pertains To Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) In

For Appellant: Ms. Kamakshi, Advocate forFor Respondent: Mr.NilayBaranSom, CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40

order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and raised grounds both on legal issue of reopening of assessment beyond 4 years and also on merits. 6. The Ld.CIT(A), after hearing the assessee dismissed the ground of appeal raised on jurisdiction and allowed ... Id.CIT(A), the revenue is before us and the assessee has filed a CO by questioning the jurisdiction of the AO for reopening the assessment beyond 4 years. 7. Since, the Assessee has raised legal issue of jurisdiction on reopening of assessment u/s.148 in cross objection, we adjudicate the legal

ACIT Circle-2(2)(1) International Taxation, New Delhi vs. Lalit Kumar Modi, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are dismissed

ITA 8655/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2024AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B Vasanta, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 143Section 148

After considering the detailed submissions of the assessee, ld. CIT (A) rejected the submissions on reopening of the assessment, on the issue of reopening of assessment u/s 143(1) and issue relating to notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. 10. With regard to addition ... other credit cards are not relating to the assessee. The Assessing Officer merely recorded that it needs scrutiny. Therefore, he proceeded to reopen the assessment and there is no other information in the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer of any escapement of income. In this regard, he relied

Lalit Kumar Modi, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-11(1), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are dismissed

ITA 8466/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B Vasanta, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 143Section 148

After considering the detailed submissions of the assessee, ld. CIT (A) rejected the submissions on reopening of the assessment, on the issue of reopening of assessment u/s 143(1) and issue relating to notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. 10. With regard to addition ... other credit cards are not relating to the assessee. The Assessing Officer merely recorded that it needs scrutiny. Therefore, he proceeded to reopen the assessment and there is no other information in the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer of any escapement of income. In this regard, he relied

Amitabha Sanyal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-58(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the penalty levied is hereby deleted

ITA 359/KOL/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Nov 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2011-12 Amitabha Sanyal, Income Tax Officer, 108B, Block-F, New Alipore, Ward – 58(4), Kolkata, Kolkata – 700053 Vs Aayakar Bhawan, (Pan: Aleps2352J) Bamboo Villa, 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata - 700014 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Amitabha Sanyal, AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, CIT, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 250Section 254(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

Suresh Chandra Mittal [2001] 251 ITR 963 (SC) the assessee filed revised returns showing higher income after search and notice for reopening of assessment, to purchase peace and avoid litigation and Department simply rested its conclusion on the act of voluntary surrender done by the I.T.A. No. 327/Del/2014 Assessment year

Bkr Capital Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 4(1), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 3399/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 132(4)Section 147Section 153CSection 68

assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the reopening of assessment proceeding u/s 147 of the Act is bad in law and is liable to be quashed being proceedings u/s 147 of the Act initiated merely

Avani Petrochem Private Limited, Vadodara vs. The Pr.CIT(Central), Surat

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1099/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 10(2)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 68

material on part of assessee, was not permissible Held, yes Whether thus, it was not open for respondent authority to exercise powers of reopening of assessment, which had already become final.” 5.8. The Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sandesh Procon (P.) Ltd. Vs. ACIT reported ... material on part of assessee, was not permissible - Held, yes Whether thus, it was not open for respondent authority to exercise powers of reopening of assessment, which had already become final”. I.T.A No. 1099/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No 8 Avani Petrochem Pvt. Ltd. Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT 9. Respectfully

Balveer Singh, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 3(3) Jaipur, Income Tax Department

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

ITA 183/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2024AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Naresh Gupta (Adv.)
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147

without considering the Return of Income filled by the Assessee. ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the reasons recorded for reopening of Assessment are bad as the proceedings initiated without considering one of the business of the assessee as a builder and consequently the assessment proceedings ... there is a clear link between information available with AO and his formation of belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, reopening of assessment is justified. Therefore the ground of the appellant assessee is dismissed. Reliance is placed on the following case laws- [2021] 129 taxmann.com 327 (Madras

Hcl Technologies Norway As, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result, similar grounds of appeal, in all the captioned

ITA 2300/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 153(2)

pertaining to assessment year 2017-18 is barred by limitation in terms of section 149(1)(b) as the conditions mentioned therein for reopening of assessment beyond 3 years were not satisfied. 3.7 That more specifically, the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in undertaking reassessment proceedings culminating

Hcl Australia Services Pty Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result, similar grounds of appeal, in all the captioned

ITA 2299/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 153(2)

pertaining to assessment year 2017-18 is barred by limitation in terms of section 149(1)(b) as the conditions mentioned therein for reopening of assessment beyond 3 years were not satisfied. 3.7 That more specifically, the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in undertaking reassessment proceedings culminating

Hcl Singapore Pte. Ltd (Successor to Axon Solutions Singapore Pte Limited), Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result, similar grounds of appeal, in all the captioned

ITA 2298/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 153(2)

pertaining to assessment year 2017-18 is barred by limitation in terms of section 149(1)(b) as the conditions mentioned therein for reopening of assessment beyond 3 years were not satisfied. 3.7 That more specifically, the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in undertaking reassessment proceedings culminating

Agl Technologies Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-1(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4692/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandraआअसं.4692/िद"ी/2019 (िन.व. 2010-11) M/S Agl Technologies Ltd., S-206, First Floor, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaeca-1070-B बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Room No. 153A, C.R Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent I.P Estate0, New Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Anuj Jain, Chartered Accountant "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 13/08/2024 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 30/10/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 26.03.2019, For Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Solitary Ground Raised By The Assessee In Appeal Is Against The Addition Of Rs.1 Crore U/S. 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Act’).

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Jain, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

basis of information received from the Investigation Wing. The AO has not applied his mind independently, thus, the reasons to believe for reopening of assessment are borrowed. He further submitted that basis of addition of Rs.1 crore is statement of one Vinod Kumar Taneja, the assessee has not been provided ... thus, proceeding u/s. 148 of the Act were initiated against the assessee. The ld. DR in support of his submissions that reopening of assessment on the basis of information received from the M/s Index Securities And Research P. Ltd., and other agencies is valid placed reliance on following decisions

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle 1 1, Chennai vs. Capital First Limited(Merged With Idfc First Bank Limited), Chennai

In the result, both the appeal filed by the Revenue and the Cross

ITA 1692/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1692/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 & C.O. No. 63/Chny/2024 [In I.T.A. No. 1692/Chny/2024] The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Capital First Limited (Merged With Income Tax, Idfc Bank Limited), Kpm Tower, 7Th Floor, No. 1, Harrington Road, Corporate Circle 11, Chennai. Chetpet, Chennai 600 031. [Pan:Aacck6863C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) Department By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit Assessee By : Shri Ketan K. Ved, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Since, The Issues Raised In The Revenue’S Appeal & The Cross Objections Of The Assessee Are Similar & Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear The Appeal

For Appellant: Shri Ketan K. Ved, C.AFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

appeal amongst which the only issue emanates for our consideration is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) justified in holding that the reopening of assessment as invalid in the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. Brief facts emanating from the record are that the assessee filed revised return ... however, the Assessing Officer made addition on account of non-convertible debenture and ESOP expenditure. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee challenged reopening of assessment and assessment made thereon under section 147 of the Act as bad in law. The ld. CIT(A) considered the submissions of the assessee

La Pahrma (Gujarat) Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1432/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ketan H. Shah &For Respondent: Shri Veerabhadram V, Sr. D.R
Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 35(1)(ii)

response to the same, notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued on 02-05-2019. The assessee filed objection against the reopening of assessment letter dated 22- 05-2019. The same was disposed of vide order dated 31-10-2019. The assessee has filed the reply

Ghanshyambhai Ambalal Patel, Kheda vs. The PCIT-1, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1007/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Divyakant Parikh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prothviraj Meena, CIT-D.R
Section 147Section 263Section 69A

page 5-6 para 7 that: "7. At the outset, we find once the Ld. AO having recorded the reasons for reopening the assessment and having formed a belief that income of the assessee had escaped assessment, had not made any addition in the reassessment proceedings in respect of issues ... DATED 22.03.2022 IS INAVLID: Kind attention in this regard is drawn to the following decisions in which it is held that if the reopening of assessment is initiated for the Reason that there was cash deposited in bank account, the reassessment proceedings are invalid and order deserved to be quashed

Vanasowrabha Associates, Warangal vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Warangal

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

ITA 439/HYD/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Oct 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Kumar ChakrapaniFor Respondent: : Shri Ashish Kumar Shukla
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234A

considered view that notice u/s.148 of the Act dated 26.10.2015, in the instant case is premature and the A.O. cannot resort to reopening the assessment merely because a particular return is not selected for scrutiny. In our considered view, for valid reopening of assessment there should be formation of belief ... tangible information that income of assessee had escaped assessment. In the present case, this is conspicuously absent. Therefore in our considered opinion, reopening of assessment u/s.148 of the Act for the assessment year in question is bad in law when there is time limit for filing of return u/s.139

Natarajan, Cuddalore vs. ITO, Itward-1(1), Chennai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 123/CHNY/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriand Hon’Ble Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.123/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-2012 Shri Natarajan The Income Tax Officer, 353, Pudupettai Main Road, Vs. International Taxation, Indira Nagar, C. Puthupettai, Ward 2(1), Parangipettai Post, Chennai 600 006 Cuddalore 608 502. Pan: Anfpn 9506Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. J. Saravanan, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Samuel Pitta, Irs, Jcit.

For Appellant: Shri. J. Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Samuel Pitta, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 148

notice by A.O. Meaning thereby, A.O. having jurisdiction over Assessee. In fact, it is his satisfaction which is to be recorded for justifying reopening of assessment / reassessment proceedings as contemplated under section 147 and recording of reasons for the same purpose is mandatory. The satisfaction of A.O. could not have ... Pankajbhai Jaysukhlal Shah [(2020) 120 taxmann.com 318 (SC)] and the ratio laid down therein is as follows: 10.....while the reasons for reopening the assessment have been recorded by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer ITA No 123 /Chny/2023 viz., the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle~2, Jamnagar, the impugned notice

DCIT Central Circle 2(1), Mumbai vs. Abhinandan Suresh Jain, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3146/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit Central Circle 2(1), Abhinandan Suresh Jain, 804, 8Th Floor, Pratistha Bhavan, C/8, Mamta Society, Lbs Marg, Vs. Cgo Building, Govardhan Nagar, Mulund (W), Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400080. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Affpj 2303 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Jayant BhattFor Respondent: 22/10/2024
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 147

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), Pune-12 erred in deciding reopening of assessment Abhinandan Suresh Jain 2 u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961 is bad in law ignoring the fact that