← 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

Incometax Officer, Nungambakkam vs. Aaditra Foundations, Anna Nagar, Chennai

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 1081/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.1081/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Ito M/S. Aaditra Foundations बनाम/ Old No.76 New No.54, 1St Floor, U Non-Corporate Ward-7(1) Vs. Chennai. Block, Anna Nagar, Chennai-600 040. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aayfa-3288-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal (Jcit)-Ld. Sr. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Y. Sridhar (Ca)- Ld.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-03-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25-04-2024

For Appellant: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT)-Ld. Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Y. Sridhar (CA)- Ld.AR
Section 147Section 46A

business operation and surrender of PAN in Nov. 2017 will not absolve the assessee from any proceedings of the Department as the reopening of assessment was done within the time limit prescribed in the IT Act. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the transactions

Smitaben Rajnikant Dave Legal Rep. Kalaen R. Joshi, Ahmedabad vs. The Itao, Ward-6(1)(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1119/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri A.P. Nanavaty, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Urjit B. Shah, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148

assessee. The assessee did not file return of income in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act. The assessee provided reason for reopening of assessment. Notice u/s. 142(1) containing questionnaire was issued on 17-08-2018 which was duly served upon the assessee. The assessee did not respond

Ravi Gopal Trivedy, Mumbai vs. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

ITA 4062/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am Ravi Gopal Trivedy 402, Sheetal, A Wing, Lokhandwala Complex, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053 Pan : Abсрт1927А Ι.Τ.Α. No. 4062/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Vs. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi Appellant) Respondent) Appellant/Assessee By Dr. K. Shivaram A/W Mr. Shashi Bekal, Ca Revenue/Respondent By Shri R.R. Makwana, Jcit Date Of Hearing 23.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.04.2024 Order Per Padmavathy S, Am: This Appeal Is Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short 'The Cit(A)] Dated 16.10.2023 For The Ay 2013-14. The Assessee Raised The Following Revised Grounds: 2

Section 143(1)Section 148

return was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Subsequently the Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment for the reason that the assessee has entered into fictitious share transactions through M/s Anand Rathi Commodities Ltd. wherein the assessee has purchased shares of the said ... plain reading of the above provisions it is clear that the fundamental requirement as stipulated u/s 147 of the Act is that before reopening an assessment, the AO has to record the reasons wherein he has to spell out the "Reasons to believe, escapement of income". It is well settled

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Sir Dorabji Tata Trust, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2116/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Bleand**

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

wrong facts. The nature of enquiry of the Assessing Officer depends upon the past history of the assessee. The reasons recorded for reopening the assessment read as under: - "Dear Taxpayer, Thank you for filing your return of income for Assessment Year **2013-14** in response to notice under section ... would be pertinent to mention here itself that each and every issue raised in the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were also the reasons for the Ld. Pr.CIT to assume jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act in A.Y. 2014-15. The same can be gathered from the grievances

ITO, Ward-30(4), New Delhi vs. Rashmi Rajiv Mehta, Gurgaon

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection is dismissed as not pressed

ITA 4399/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarasstt. Year: 2011-12 Ito, Ward-30(4), Vs. Rashmi Rajiv Mehta New Delhi E-52, Raheja Atlantis, Sector – 31, Nh-8, Gurgaon Haryana Pin 122002 Pan Akspm6239M (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 181/Del/2018 Arising Out Of Ita 4399/Del/2018 Asstt. Year 2011-12 Rashmi Rajiv Mehta Vs. Ito, Ward-30(4), E-52, Raheja New Delhi Atlantis, Sector – 31, Nh-8, Gurgaon Haryana Pin 122002 Pan Akspm6239M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocatFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

earlier which the assessee failed during the assessment proceedings. 5. In cross objection assessee pleaded that Learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the reopening of assessment done by the AO despite the fact that the initiation of the proceedings under section 147 r.w. section 148 is bad and liable ... quashed. Learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the reopening of assessment despite the fact that the Learned AO had reopened the assessment on the basis of doubt and suspicion. There was no fresh tangible material with the Learned AO to form any opinion regarding escapement of income

Anoop Nopany, Kolata vs. ITO, Ward 40(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1381/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.1381/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Anoop Nopany………………….…….…................…...……………....Appellant P-39, 2Nd Floor, Princep Street, Kolkata- 700072. [Pan: Abfpn3215L] Vs. Ito, Ward-40(1), Kolkata….....…..........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Narendra Kedia, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sanjay Paul, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 19, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 23, 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 19.07.2023 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 Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(Appeal) Nfac, Failed To Notice That Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2018 Passed Under Section 143(3)/263 Of The Act Is Bad In Law, Void Ab-Initio, Lacks Jurisdiction Since Original Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2016 Passes U/S 143(3) Was Bad In Law, Void Ab Initio. & Consequentially Any

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263

investors Industrial Corporation 194 ITR 548 (Bombay) has held that the assessee was entitled to challenge the jurisdiction of the AO to initiate reopening of assessment proceedings before the CIT (A) in the second round of proceedings even though it has not raised the same before earlier proceedings before

Rakesh Kumar Aggarwal, Delhi vs. ACIT, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1912/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Goel, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

case of any income escaping assessment. 8. Ergo, the appeal of the assessee is allowed on account of wrong reasons recorded for reopening of assessment as well as on merits of the case. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court

Shah Construction Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 859/MUM/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri M. SubramanianFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 36(1)(iii)

appeal was taken up for hearing, at the outset, the Ld. Authorised Representative for the Appellant took us through the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment and the Assessment Order, dated 31/03/2016, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act, and submitted that the disallowances made ... provisions contained in Section 147 of the Act and therefore, should be deleted. It was further submitted that the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment were vague and factually incorrect. 7. In response the Ld. Departmental Representative made 3 oral/written submissions. It was contended that the Assessing Officer has made

Neera Dhupar, Delhi vs. I T O, Uttar Pradesh

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3051/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad:Assessment Year: 2011-12 Neera Dhupar, Vs. Ito, Ward-2(3), 1E/15, Jhandewalan Noida (Up) Extension, Delhi-1100 55

Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

factual and legal inaccuracies in the reasons recorded which also shows total non-application of mind by superior authority in granting approval for reopening of assessment, as such, the reassessment proceedings are a mere pretence and deserves to be quashed. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals

I.T.O., Ward-1(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Gabhawala Tax Advisors Pvt. Ltd.(Formerly Known As M/S Ostrich Tie Up Pvt. Ltd.), Gurubagh

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed being infructuous

ITA 1831/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: N on eFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 5(2)Section 6Section 68

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the IT Act made by the A.O. only on the premise that reason recorded for initiation of proceedings assessment ... assessee. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in quashing the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the IT Act and has erred in appreciating the facts that the A.O. has recorded his reason to believe that income

Mr Manish Rajnarain Goswami, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3960/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Blemanish Rajnarain Goswami V. Income Tax Officer – 16(1)(3) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Metropolitan Chsl Mumbai - 400020 B-6 / B-8, Nargisdas Road Pali Hill, Bandra (W) Mumbai - 400050 Pan: Addpg7655D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vijay Mehta Department Represented By : Smt Mahita Nair

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

facts. 5. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend aforesaid grounds of appeal.” 3. The first challenge is in respect of reopening of assessment by the issue of notice under section 148 of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”). Since this goes to the root ... being issued after obtaining the necessary satisfaction of the Pr.CIT-16, MUMBAI.” Page No. 3 Manish Rajnarain Goswami 8. The reasons for reopening the assessment read as under: - “Sub.: providing of Reasons for reopening u/s 148 in your case. Ref: your letter dated 02/01/2018. ……… Kindly refer to the above. Reasons

Brilliant Metals Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO Ward 5(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3883/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Deepanshu Singla, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 68

against the returned income of Rs. 11,500/-. 2. The Ld. AO has erred on facts and in law in reopening the assessments of the appellant u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without following the requirements of law as laid down for reopening of assessments by mechanically following

Medisetty Venkata Rattaiah, Vijayawada vs. The Assistant Or Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Vijayawada

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

ITA 94/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.94/Viz/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2017-18) Medisetty Venkata Rattaiah, Vs. The Assistant Or Deputy Vijayawada. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pan: Abypm 1595 M Vijayawada. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थीकीओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar प्रत्यधर्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

investment U/s. 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act is bad in law. 5 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the reopening of assessment U/s. 147 and the notice issued U/s. 148 of the Act is invalid in law. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case

Kalyanasundaram Bharath Hari, Chittlapakkam, Chennai vs. ITO, Int. Tax Ward 1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 307/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 50CSection 54

regards to the order of AO i.e., Income Tax Officer, International Taxation, Ward 1(1), Chennai assuming jurisdiction u/s.147 of the Act for reopening of assessment without sanction of law and reopening as bad in law. For this, assessee has raised the following ground ... before DRP for issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act and DRP vide order dated 14.12.2022 upheld the action of the AO in reopening of assessment u/s.147 of the Act and approved the draft order of AO. For this, the DRP recorded as under:- 2.0 Grounds of Objection No.1

Nissim Traders Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 10 (3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3310/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble& Shri B.R. Baskaran: A.Y : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri P.V.DesaiFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 148

year 2010-11. At the time of hearing the ld. Authorized Representative of the Assessee did not press the groundschallenging the validity of reopening of assessment. Accordingly, those grounds are dismissed as not pressed. The remaining grounds relate to addition of Rs.6.40 cores made by the Assessing Officer ... credit entries aggregating to Rs.24.18 cores were found to have been made. Based on the aforesaid information, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment for Assessment Year 2010-11 by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Before the Assessing Officer the assessee furnished details regarding credit entries in the form

Mukesh B. Bajaj, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax/Income Tax Officer /National E-Assessment Centre.Delhi, Mumbai

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

ITA 3910/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Ms. Padmavathy Smukesh.B.Bajaj, Vs Ito-28(2)(2), Flat No. A-302, Vashi, Saibaba, Arcade, Navi Mumbai-400703. Sector-11, Vashi Navi Mumbai-400703. Pan/Gir No. : Aempb1761K Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Fenil Bhatt.ARFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana.DR
Section 144Section 147Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 69Section 69A

interest income of Rs. 10,000/- was received by the assessee from Kotak Mahindra Bank. The AO after recording the reasons for reopening of assessment has issued notice u/sec 148 of Mukesh B Bajaj, Mumbai. the Act and subsequently notice u/sec 142(1) of the Act was issued through

Rohit Kumar Yadav, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer 5(5), Indore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 442/IND/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanirohit Kumar Yadav Ito 5(5) Hig-Dx-2Manishmati Arvind Indore Vihar, Mahishmati Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaupy5015 F Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah & Soumya Bumb Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15.04.2024

Section 50C

which enables the AO to make a protective assessment/addition. In the present case, the AO proceeded to make protective assessment by way of reopening of assessment of the assessee appellant company without being a substantive assessment on the date of assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act which

Jyoti Ajit Kulkarni, Pune vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. 5(3), Mumbai

ITA 5073/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri ChandrasekharFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair – (SR DR)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

Jyoti Ajit Kulkarni, Pune vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. 5(3), Mumbai

ITA 5070/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri ChandrasekharFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair – (SR DR)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

Akunuri Sai Avinash, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle (International Taxation), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 42/VIZ/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam12 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon‟Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon‟Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.42/Viz/2023 (धनधाारणिर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2016-17) Akunuri Sai Avinash, Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Rep. By Gpa Holder Dr. Akunuri Income Tax, Sai Babu, Circle (International Taxation), Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar प्रत्याथीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुनिाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26/03/2024 घोर्णाकीतारीख/Date Of : 12/04/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per S. Balakrishnan:

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 50C

argued by the Ld. AR that there are no tangible material before the Ld. AO warranting the reopening of assessment U/s. 147 of the Act. The Ld. AR argued that there is no income escaping assessment and hence the reopening of the case is void-ab-initio. Per contra