← 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

Jolly Maker 1 Prem Co-Op Soc Ltd, Mumbai City vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 2826/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: M.V. ChokshiFor Respondent: Ujjawal Kumar Chavan
Section 250Section 27Section 60Section 80P

this position was constantly followed till assessment year 2010-11. 11. The assessee further submitted that notice for reopening the assessment was issued u/s 148 of the Act for assessment year 2007- 08 to 2012-13.The Ho’nble Bombay High Court vide order dated 11.02.2022 for assessment year ... clubbed income as representative assessee with that of the society on the instance of the department, thereafter the other notices issued for reopening the assessment were withdrawn by the department. Even the notice u/s 148 issued for reopening of assessment for assessment year 2007-08 was also quashed

P.L. Goenka HUF, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 29/4, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 412/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Roy, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Patra, Addl. CIT, D/R
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 250

issued by the CBDT vide its internal directive No. 247/140/2017-A&PC-1 dated 10/01/18, it was claimed that the legal requirement to reopen the assessment i.e., reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, has not been satisfied. Therefore, notice u/s 148 of the Act issued ... reopening the assessment, is bad in law and subsequently, all the actions taken by the Assessing Officer is null in the eyes of law. I.T.A. No. 412 /Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 P.L. Goenka HUF 4 4.1. On the other hand, the ld. D/R vehemently argued supporting the order

Panel Commerce Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-4(1), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1116/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that reopening of assessment was proper when it was reopened only on the basis of information received from Inv. Wing borrowed satisfaction, non-application of mind and after recording vague reasons ... same has been done only on the basis of information received from Investigation Wing without making any enquiry by the AO prior to reopening of assessment. He further stated that in the case of assessee there was neither any independent application of mind by the AO nor any tangible material

Lovely Promoters Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer

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

ITA 770/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Taparia (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT) a
Section 127Section 127(1)Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 153C

section 148. There is absolutely no indication in all these provisions which would suggest that the legislature intended that the new scheme of reopening of assessments would be applicable only to the period post 1-4-2021. In absence of any such indication all notices which were issued after ... Assessing officer formed an opinion that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Mere change of opinion is not valid grounds for reopening the assessment. 4. Sir, we humbly submit that the present case is classic example of mere change in opinion despite being settled legal preposition that assessment cannot

Bharat De vs. Hi Dagha, Thanevs.ITO Ward 3(1), Kalyan

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3315/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Bharat Devshi Dagha, Ito, Ward 3(1), 3/13, Geet Govind Chs. Rani Mansion Manpada Road, Vs. Maharashtra-421301. Dombivli East-421 201. Pan No. Aarpd 9399 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Kalpesh Khatri, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Surendra Kumar Meena, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148

Officer recorded reasons to believe ficer recorded reasons to believe ficer recorded reasons to believe that income escaped assessment escaped assessment , therefore, he reopened the assessment by way therefore, he reopened the assessment by way of issuing notice u/s 148 of the of issuing notice u/s 148 of the Income ... first ground of appeal raised by the appellant is regarding The first ground of appeal raised by the appellant is regarding the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act. During the appellate the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act. During the appellate the reopening of assessment

Bharat De vs. Hi Dagha, Thanevs.ITO Ward 3(1), Kalyan

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3314/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Bharat Devshi Dagha, Ito, Ward 3(1), 3/13, Geet Govind Chs. Rani Mansion Manpada Road, Vs. Maharashtra-421301. Dombivli East-421 201. Pan No. Aarpd 9399 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Kalpesh Khatri, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Surendra Kumar Meena, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148

Officer recorded reasons to believe ficer recorded reasons to believe ficer recorded reasons to believe that income escaped assessment escaped assessment , therefore, he reopened the assessment by way therefore, he reopened the assessment by way of issuing notice u/s 148 of the of issuing notice u/s 148 of the Income ... first ground of appeal raised by the appellant is regarding The first ground of appeal raised by the appellant is regarding the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act. During the appellate the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act. During the appellate the reopening of assessment

Nova Estates Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 18(4), New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 76/DEL/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: The Ld. Ao & Despite Such Scrutiny No Addition Was Made In The Original Assessment Proceedings.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

such scrutiny no addition was made in the original assessment proceedings. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in affirming the reopening the assessment due to change of opinion. Assessment proceedings were concluded after due consideration of all facts and material placed before him. In view ... judgments of ITO v. Techspan India (P) Ltd (2018) 404 ITR 10 (SC) and CIT vs Bhanji Lavji (1971) 79 ITR 582 (SC) reopening of assessment merely on change of opinion is bad in law. 6. That the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued without the proper sanction

Vishram Sahakari Awas Samiti Limited, G.Noida vs. ITO, Ward-2(5), Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1667/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 68

erred both on facts and in law in confirming the order of the AO rejecting the contention of the assessee that reopening the assessment under Section 147 of the Act and consequent reassessment without complying with the statutory conditions and the procedure prescribed under the law are bad and liable ... ignoring the contention of the assessee that the Assessing Officer has completed the assessment without furnishing the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment to the assessee. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the order

Shri Shivajirao R.Chavan, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-13(2), Ahmedabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 435/AHD/2005[1996-1997]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Feb 2024AY 1996-1997

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Sakar Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

notice has to be issued by the Assessing Office on his own satisfaction and not on borrowed satisfaction. 20. Applying the law on reopening of assessments u/s 147 of the Act as noted above by us to the facts of the case we find merit in the contention ... report were available with the AO mentioning even the date of investment. 22. As stated abovethe law empowers him to reopen the assessment for a particular A.Y only on his satisfaction of income having escaped assessment for the said year. In the absence of the samethe said reasons cannot therefore

The ITO, Ward-13(2), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Shivajirao R.Chavan, Ahmedabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 332/AHD/2005[1996-1997]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Feb 2024AY 1996-1997

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Sakar Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

notice has to be issued by the Assessing Office on his own satisfaction and not on borrowed satisfaction. 20. Applying the law on reopening of assessments u/s 147 of the Act as noted above by us to the facts of the case we find merit in the contention ... report were available with the AO mentioning even the date of investment. 22. As stated abovethe law empowers him to reopen the assessment for a particular A.Y only on his satisfaction of income having escaped assessment for the said year. In the absence of the samethe said reasons cannot therefore

Tata Motors Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 631/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.631/मुं/2013 (िन.व. 2008-09) Tata Motors Limited Bombay House, 24,Homi Mody Street, Hutama Chowk, Mumbai – 400001. Pan: Aaact-2727-Q ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle -2(3), Mumbai. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ....."ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr.Advocate With Shri Nikhil Tiwari,Advocate "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Vatsala Jha, Cit-Dr & Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/11/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 05/02/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr.Advocate with Shri Nikhil Tiwari,AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsala Jha, CIT-DR and Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr.AR
Section 116Section 143(3)Section 92C

deduction claimed by TFL Rs.1,37,99,189/- was disallowed by the A.O in reassessment proceedings. The assessee challenged reopening of assessment before the Tribunal in ITA No.4100/Mum/2011 for Assessment Year 2004-05. The Tribunal vide order dated 31/07/2017 quashed reopening of assessment. Therefore, claim was made before the A.O/DRP

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), International Taxation, Bengaluru, Bangalore vs. Tata Communication (Uk) Limited, United Kingdom

In the result, Revenue’s appeals and the COs of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 865/BANG/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(It)A Nos.864, 865/Bang/2023 Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Tata Communications (Uk) Ltd., Circle -2(2), International Taxation, Vintners Place, 68 Upper Thames, Bengaluru. Street London Ec4V3Bj, United Kingdom - 999999. Pan : Aahct 0782 C Appellant Respondent C.O.Nos.2, 3/Bang/2024 (In It(It)A Nos. 864, 865/Bang/2023) Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 M/S. Tata Communictions (Uk) Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vintners Place, 68 Upper Thames, Circle -2(2), International Taxation, Street London Ec4V3Bj, Bengaluru. United Kingdom - 999999. Pan : Aahct 0782 C Cross Objector Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Ketan Ved, Ca Respondent By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.02.2024 O R D E R Per Bench : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Department & Cross- Objections (Co) By The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Orders Of Cit(A)

For Appellant: Shri. Ketan Ved, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 201Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

under the relevant DTAA. The CIT(A) rejected the assessee’s contentions on the legal grounds and held that reopening of assessment is valid. The CIT(A) on merits allowed the appeal of the assessee by following the ratio of the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court ... supra). 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. In the instant case, the assessments were reopened for Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2010-11 on the basis of the orders passed under section 201 of the Act in the case of the payer

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), International Taxation, Bengaluru vs. Tata Communication (Uk) Limited, United Kingdom

In the result, Revenue’s appeals and the COs of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 864/BANG/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(It)A Nos.864, 865/Bang/2023 Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Tata Communications (Uk) Ltd., Circle -2(2), International Taxation, Vintners Place, 68 Upper Thames, Bengaluru. Street London Ec4V3Bj, United Kingdom - 999999. Pan : Aahct 0782 C Appellant Respondent C.O.Nos.2, 3/Bang/2024 (In It(It)A Nos. 864, 865/Bang/2023) Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 M/S. Tata Communictions (Uk) Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vintners Place, 68 Upper Thames, Circle -2(2), International Taxation, Street London Ec4V3Bj, Bengaluru. United Kingdom - 999999. Pan : Aahct 0782 C Cross Objector Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Ketan Ved, Ca Respondent By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.02.2024 O R D E R Per Bench : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Department & Cross- Objections (Co) By The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Orders Of Cit(A)

For Appellant: Shri. Ketan Ved, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 201Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

under the relevant DTAA. The CIT(A) rejected the assessee’s contentions on the legal grounds and held that reopening of assessment is valid. The CIT(A) on merits allowed the appeal of the assessee by following the ratio of the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court ... supra). 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. In the instant case, the assessments were reopened for Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2010-11 on the basis of the orders passed under section 201 of the Act in the case of the payer

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Green Gem Estates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1732/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Dey & Sh. N. K. Billaiyaassessment Year: 2011-12 Acit Vs. Green Gem Estates Pvt. Ltd. R/O B- 4/43, 2Nd Floor, Central Circle -2 New Delhi Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi – 110029 Pan No.Aaacg3209Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, Cit Dr Respondent By Sh. Somil Aggarwal, Advocate Sh. Deepesh Garg, Advocate Sh. Shrey Jain, Advocate Date Of Hearing: 01/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 01/02/2024 Order Per N. K. Billaiya, Am:

Section 133Section 147Section 148Section 66Section 68

mere information from the Investigation Wing, unverified by the AO, cannot form the basis of bonafide belief of the AO. “4.1.7 As regards reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act and recording of reasons therefore, it is settled law as held by various Courts including the Hon’ble Supreme ... reopened and the existence of such reasons and a direct nexus between those reasons and the alleged evasion is a condition precedent for reopening of assessment; and in the absence of application of mind to the facts alleged to have been found the decision arrived at that income escaped assessment

Pankaj Mukherjee, Durgapur vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 1, Durgapur

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2294/KOL/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Dcit, Circle-1, Pankaj Mukherjee Aaykar Bhavan, Aykar Bithi, 1/9 Debinagar, Beniachity, City Centre, Durgapur, Vs. Kolkata-713213, West Bengal West Bengal 713216 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ajopm7641Q Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rajat Datta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Datta, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 40A(3)Section 68

appeal is admitted for adjudication. 05. The only issue raised by the assessee is against the order of ld. CIT (A) upholding the reopening of assessment when the necessary conditions as specified u/s 147, were not satisfied. 06. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return ... Thus, the ld. CIT (A) deleted the addition which was subject matter of the reasons recorded. 08. Now, aggrieved assessee has challenged the reopening of assessment to be bad in law and invalid for the reason that the very basis for reopening has gone as the addition made

M/S. Mukesh Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 9(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1614/KOL/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Ito, Ward 9(1) M/S Mukesh Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, 5 Th Floor, 180, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700007, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Vs. West Bengal Kolkata-700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecm7276R Assessee By : Shri Abhishek Bansal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sailen Samadder, Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Bansal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, DR
Section 147Section 148Section 68

name of the party from whom the accommodation entries were taken by the assessee were given. The ld. AR stated that the reopening of assessment is not allowed on the M/s Mukesh Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 2010-11 basis of such reasons which were recorded by the ld. AO without ... date on which these transactions were made, etc. Under these circumstances, we find merit in the contention of the assessee that the reopening of assessment has been made on the basis of vague reasons without there being any independent application of mind by the ld. Assessing Officer. The case

Bharat Singh Chawda, Dewas vs. The ITO-1, Dewas

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 234/IND/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyania.Y. 2011-12

Section 148Section 2(14)

reiterated its stand that the agricultural land sold by the assessee is exempt from tax and further, the allegations of the AO for reopening the assessment are contrary to the record and facts as the assessee has not sold any property alleged by the AO. The assessee also challenged ... reopening of assessment before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO and sustained the addition in question. 5. Before the Tribunal, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has explained before the AO that agricultural land sold by the assessee

Manish Kumudchandra Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 19(2)(3), Mumbai

ITA 2679/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Mrugakshi JoshiFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

returned filed in response to notice, dated 23/03/2016, issued under Section 148 of the Act. Thereafter, a copy of reasons recorded for reopening of assessment was provided to the Appellant vide letter, dated 21/04/2016. During the reassessment proceedings, the Appellant was asked to furnish details of transactions undertaken

G.J. Holding Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana vs. ACIT, C-2, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1171/CHANDI/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1171/Chandi/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 G.J. Holding Pvt. Ltd. बनाम Acit, Central Circle-Ii, Ludhiana C/O G.S. Auto International Limited, G.S. Estate, G.T. Road, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaacg6664K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri P.K. Goel & Sunil Arora, C.As राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2023 उदघोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2024 आदेश/Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 04.07.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ludhiana[Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following 2. Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Goel & Sunil Arora, C.AsFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Page 2 of 26 Rs.2,00,90,000 /- has grossly erred onfacts and in law by ignoring the fact that the reopening of assessment U/s 148 by the Ld.A.0. is bad in law. 2. That the Ld. CKT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in not adjudicating ... fact that the Ld. A.0. has completed the assessmentproceedings) without fully disposing off all the objections filed by the appellant companyagainst the reopening of assessment in utter violation of law as laid down by the Hon'bleSupreme Court in GKN Driveshaft (India) Limited

Smt. Supriya Gupta., Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-30(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1273/KOL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Manish Borad&Shri Anikesh Banerjee]

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

very initiation of the proceedings is void-ab-initio. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the reopening of assessment was solely on the basis-of information received from the investigation wing of the income tax department without even analyzing the records of the regular assessment proceedings ... that such reopening of assessment was without independent application of mind and on borrowed satisfaction. 3 I.T.A. No. 1273/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2009-10 Smt. Supriya Gupta 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessment proceedings were completed, and demand was confirmed without issuing a show cause