← 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

M/S Metal Impex, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 799/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.799 To 805/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2016-17 To 2020-21 V. M/S. Metal Impex, The Acit, The Lattice, 4Th Floor, Central Circle-1(1), No.20 Waddles Road, Chennai. Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010. [Pan: Aamfm 4856 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153C(2)Section 68

Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, to whom these documents related to, and not the assessee-firm. He further showed us that, the AO had also reopened the assessment of M/s KSJ Infrastructure Pvt Ltd u/s 153C of the Act and added the impugned credits in hands of M/s KSJ Infrastructure ... well. The Ld. AR thus argued that, the impugned action of reopening the assessment of the assessee u/s 153C of the Act ITA Nos.799 to 805/Chny/2024 (AYs 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2016-17 to 2020-21) M/s. Metal Impex :: 7 :: was erroneous and on wrong assumption of jurisdictional fact

Lakshmi Gayathri Arvapalli, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Chennai

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

ITA 848/CHNY/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.847 & 848/Chny/2023 िनधा<रण वष< /Assessment Year: 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S. Lakshmi Gayathri Arvapalli, The Asst. Commissioner Of No.1, Palat Madhavan Road, Vs. Income Tax, Mahalingapuram, Central Circle-1(2), Chennai – 600 034. Chennai. [Pan: Aaipa 3035F]

For Appellant: Shri J. Vignesh, C.A &For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 68

issues in these appeal are restored to the file of the A0 for verification of the same. " "Coming to the issue of the reopening of assessment, which has been raised in the Cross-objections fled by the assessee, as the issue on merits are restored to the file

Lakshmi Gayathri Arvapalli, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Cir-1(2), Chennai

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

ITA 847/CHNY/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.847 & 848/Chny/2023 िनधा<रण वष< /Assessment Year: 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S. Lakshmi Gayathri Arvapalli, The Asst. Commissioner Of No.1, Palat Madhavan Road, Vs. Income Tax, Mahalingapuram, Central Circle-1(2), Chennai – 600 034. Chennai. [Pan: Aaipa 3035F]

For Appellant: Shri J. Vignesh, C.A &For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 68

issues in these appeal are restored to the file of the A0 for verification of the same. " "Coming to the issue of the reopening of assessment, which has been raised in the Cross-objections fled by the assessee, as the issue on merits are restored to the file

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2892/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2016-17 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Small Industries Income Tax Circle- Development Bank Of 3(3)(1) India Room No. 609, Sme Development Centre, Aaykar Bhavan, C-11, G- Block, Vs. M. K. Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Churchgate, Bandra (East), Mumbai- 400020. Pan: Aabcs3480N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule- CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

Small Industries Development Bank Of India.; A. Y.2016-17 was issued to the assessee vide ITBA/AST/S/148/2020-21/1031805240(1) on 26.03.2021. The reasons for reopening of assessment are as under: 1. “In this case, assessment u/s. 143(3) was completed on 28/12/18 assessing the total income at Rs.1646,52,55,744/-as against ... objections raised as above were disposed of by the AO on 31.01.2022 by holding as under: - “The reasons giving rise to the reopening of assessment have been clearly discussed for each issue and the Ld. AO recorded his satisfaction for reopening of assessment on the basis of these issues. Thus

Amish Manubhai Brahmbhatt, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 932/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

there is a nominal profit of Rs.49792 only arrived by the assessee which is less than limitation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for reopening of assessment u/s. 147 of the Act. Further the reasons recorded for providing entries of long term capital gain, short term capital loss or business loss ... nominal profit of Rs.49792 received by the assessee which is offered for taxation as his business income. Thus the very basis of reopening of assessment itself fails, therefore the reassessment made by the Assessing Officer has no legs to stand. In our considered view, the entire reassessment proceedings is liable

Income Tax Office, Ward-6(2), Jaipur vs. Medical Designs India Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 236/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2024AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Ratan Lal Goyal (C.A.) &For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT)
Section 127Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

rejoinder filed by the appellant have been verified and placed on record. The main contention of the case is that the AO has reopened the assessment on the basis of the information received tha’ he appellant has purchased immovable property and source of the said investment is remained unexplained since ... seller and not the purchaser, however it was wrongly held as he purchaser which is the contrary to the reasons recorded for reopening o assessment. This fact is clarified by the AO in the remand report. The relevant portion of the remand report is reproduced as under: ITA No. 236/JPR/2024

Comfort Intech Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 4(1)(1) Mumbai, Aaykar Bhawan Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2926/MUM/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal&For Respondent: Shri Yogendra T. Wakare, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

shall now take up the appeals filed for AY. 2011-12. In the appeal of the assessee, it is challenging the validity of reopening of assessment. Since this legal issue goes to the root of the matter, we shall first deal with it. 4. The assessee filed its return ... regular assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act was completed on 30-01-2014 determining total income at Rs.75.00 lakhs. Subsequently, the AO reopened the assessment by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 26-03- 2018. It is pertinent to note that this assessment has been reopened

Comfort Intech Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 4(1)(1) Mumbai, Aaykar Bhawan Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2573/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal&For Respondent: Shri Yogendra T. Wakare, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

shall now take up the appeals filed for AY. 2011-12. In the appeal of the assessee, it is challenging the validity of reopening of assessment. Since this legal issue goes to the root of the matter, we shall first deal with it. 4. The assessee filed its return ... regular assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act was completed on 30-01-2014 determining total income at Rs.75.00 lakhs. Subsequently, the AO reopened the assessment by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 26-03- 2018. It is pertinent to note that this assessment has been reopened

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax- 4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Comfort Intech Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2218/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal&For Respondent: Shri Yogendra T. Wakare, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

shall now take up the appeals filed for AY. 2011-12. In the appeal of the assessee, it is challenging the validity of reopening of assessment. Since this legal issue goes to the root of the matter, we shall first deal with it. 4. The assessee filed its return ... regular assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act was completed on 30-01-2014 determining total income at Rs.75.00 lakhs. Subsequently, the AO reopened the assessment by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 26-03- 2018. It is pertinent to note that this assessment has been reopened

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Comfort Intech Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2216/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal&For Respondent: Shri Yogendra T. Wakare, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

shall now take up the appeals filed for AY. 2011-12. In the appeal of the assessee, it is challenging the validity of reopening of assessment. Since this legal issue goes to the root of the matter, we shall first deal with it. 4. The assessee filed its return ... regular assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act was completed on 30-01-2014 determining total income at Rs.75.00 lakhs. Subsequently, the AO reopened the assessment by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 26-03- 2018. It is pertinent to note that this assessment has been reopened

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax- 4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Comfort Intech Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2212/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal&For Respondent: Shri Yogendra T. Wakare, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

shall now take up the appeals filed for AY. 2011-12. In the appeal of the assessee, it is challenging the validity of reopening of assessment. Since this legal issue goes to the root of the matter, we shall first deal with it. 4. The assessee filed its return ... regular assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act was completed on 30-01-2014 determining total income at Rs.75.00 lakhs. Subsequently, the AO reopened the assessment by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 26-03- 2018. It is pertinent to note that this assessment has been reopened

M/S Ramniklal & Sons, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-19(3)(1) Presented Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 19(3), Mumbai

In the result, assessee gets a partial relief

ITA 1192/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Devang Divecha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

have already been disallowed and restricted to the tune of @ 3% of said alleged bogus purchases in the previous reopening of Assessment Order dated 11-03- 2016 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act in Assessee's own case for same assessment year

A.C.I.T, Wardha Circle, Wardha vs. M/S Kapil Solvex Pvt .Ltd, Yavatmal

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

ITA 221/NAG/2017[2009-20010]Status: Trans-OutITAT Pune26 Sept 2024

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

same was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Subsequently, the Assessing Officer 2 reopened the assessment in terms of provisions of section 147 of the Act by recording the following reasons: “Since a Substantial amount of money of Rs.3 ... assessee, apart from challenging the addition on merit, challenged the validity of reopening of the assessment on the ground that the reasons for reopening the assessment were not provided to it and therefore, the re- assessment proceedings are invalid in law. 7. So far as merit of the case

Rukhmani Traders, Mumbai vs. ACIT 18 Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 822/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Rukhmani Traders, Asst. Cit -18(3), 6Th Floor, A Wing, Aurus Chambers, Earnest House, Nariman Point, Vs. S.S. Amrutwar Marg, Behind Mumbai-400021. Mahindra Towers, Worli, Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aalfr 1619 R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Shreyash ShahFor Respondent: Mrs. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 151

reopening of 4. Then the assessee requested for the reasons for reopening of 4. Then the assessee requested for the reasons for reopening of assessment, which have supplied to the assessee vide letter dated: assessment, which have supplied to the assessee vide letter dated: assessment, which have supplied

Ishoo Narang, Hyderabad vs. DCIT Circle -2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 450/HYD/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.450/Hyd/2022 & S.A. No.1/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ishoo Narang Vs. Dy. Cit Hyderabad Circle 2(1) Pan:Aaupn9082B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Th Vijaya Lakshmi, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/08/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/09/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15/07/2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Holding That Al The Mandatory Preconditions Before Reopening Of Assessment U/S 147 Of The Act Were Duly Complied & Met With By The A.O.

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. TH Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT (DR)
Section 10(38)Section 133ASection 147Section 68

erred in dismissing the appeal. 2. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding that al the mandatory preconditions before reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act were duly complied and met with by the A.O. Page

Bapatla Mahila Mutually Aided Co-Op Thrift Societ Limited, Bapatla vs. Income-Tax Officer, Wrd-1, Bapatla

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

ITA 321/VIZ/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 321/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Bapatla Mahila Mutually Aided Vs. Income Tax Officer, Co-Op. Thrift Society Limited, Ward-1, Bapatla. Bapatla. Pan: Aaaab6442N (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri I. Kama Sastry, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 23/09/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 25/09/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri I. Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 271FSection 69A

NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The reopening of assessment is bad in law as the notice U/s. 148 dated 29/03/2021 was issued on 01/04/2021 without following the procedure prescribed under the new law effective from 01/04/2021 consequently

Prasant Desai, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 61, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 735/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.735/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Prasant Desai……..……………….………...........………………....Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocate, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite – 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700069. [Pan: Acypd1511B] Vs. Dcit, Circle-61, Kolkata.……………….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Arup Chatterjee, Addl. Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 02, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 25, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.02.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Confirmation Of Addition Of Rs.75,00,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Unsecured Loans Received From M/S Festive Deal Trade Pvt. Ltd. Treating The Same As Bogus.

Section 147Section 148Section 250

mentioned above. He, therefore, held that he has reasons to believe that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment and accordingly, reopened the assessment. 4. The ld. counsel, at the outset, has agitated against the validity of the reopening of the assessment. The ld. counsel in this respect ... record. We note that under the relevant provisions of section 147 & section 148 of the Income Tax Act, for assuming jurisdiction to reopen an assessment by the Assessing Officer, there is a condition precedent that the Assessing Officer must have reasons to believe that the income of the assessee

Anju Chirania, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 4(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3158/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judicialmember & Shri Girish Agrawalanju Chirania, Vs. Ito, Ward –4(1)(3), 301, Sona Chambers, Room No. 637, 507/509, Jss Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Chira Bazar, Marine Lines, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 002. Mumbai-400020. Pan/Gir No. Afcpc9073Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in confirming the reopening of assessment u/s 147 by issue of notice u/s 148 dated 31.03.2021 by the Assessing Officer, which is not as per provisions of law, clearly outside ... Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in confirming the Assessing Officer's action in reopening the assessment u/s 147 ignoring the rationale provided in the judgment of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court Bombay in the case of Voltas Ltd Vs ACIT

Ashvinbhai Bhimjibhai Patel (Limbani), Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(5), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 351/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: The Tribunal. The Delay Is Neither Willful Nor Wanton & Therefore Requested To Condone The Delay In The Interest Of Justice. The Ld. Sr. D.R., Shri Prateek Sharma, Appearing For The Revenue Has No Serious Objection, Hence The Delay Of 133 Days In Filing The Above Appeal Is Hereby Condoned.

For Appellant: Shri Parin S. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)

that the matter be considered for remitting it back to the file of CIT(A) to decide the case on merits. Since its reopening of assessment, the assessee challenged the validity of reopening as well as merits of the case, since the appellate order being an ex-parte order

Nilima Kothari, Indore vs. The Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Asstt. Centre, Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

ITA 259/IND/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manish Boradsmt. Neelima Kothari, Income Tax Officer, 601, N.R.K. Villas, Delhi Vs. 22/2 Manoramaganj, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adnpk7832J Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.09.2024

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

reason for not pursuing the appeal as presumed by the Ld. CIT(A). He did not even decide the issue regarding validity of reopening of assessment after the time limit permitted under the Act. Order so passed by Ld. CIT(A) therefore, is arbitrary, unjustified ... escaped assessmentrepresented in the form of an asset so for as A.Y. 2015-16 to 2017-18 are concerned. The last date for reopening of assessment for A.Y. 2016-17 was 31.03.2021 unless additional condition regarding escaped income of Rs. 50 lacs or more is proved. The notice