← 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

DCIT, CC-3(3), Kolkata vs. Tulsyan and Sons Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 812/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 4Section 68

A.G.R. Investment Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax and anr. (supra), a Division Bench of Delhi High Court considered the validity of reopening of assessment where the notice was based on information received from Directorate of investigation that the assessee was beneficiary of bogus accommodation entries. The Court while ... petitioner however kept open. In view of the above therefore, the AO is noted to have fulfilled the conditions precedent for reopening the assessment and thus the AO's action of reopening of assessment u/s 147 is held to be valid. Accordingly, Ground Nos. 1 to 7 are dismissed. Ground

Naz Shazia, Moradabad vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Moradabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1831/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshnaz Shazia, Vs. Ito, Anwar House, Ground Ward-1(1), Floor, Pandit Nagla Mini Moradabad Bye Pass Road, Moradabad Pan: Bbwps217R Assessee By : Shri V. K. Tulsian, Ca Revenue By: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18/01/2024

For Appellant: Shri V. K. Tulsian, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 69A

circumstances of the case and in law, the Id Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre has erred in confirming the reopening the assessment order. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless ... Grounds of Appeal either before or during the course of hearing of appeal.” 3. The assessee had challenged the validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act in the instant case. The interconnected issue involved therein is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in confirming

Puneet Singh R. Bhadouria, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-4(1)(9), Vadodara

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 334/AHD/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 10(38)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. The order passed by NFAC is bad in law and required to be quashed. 2. The reopening of assessment under Section 148 is bad in law as same has been done for verification purpose only for making fishing and roving inquiries

M/S. Panjos Builders Pvt Ltd., Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 434/BANG/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 201(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 40Section 4o

Notice u/s 148 of the Act for reopening of the assessment was issued to the assessee on 14.2.2014. The reason recorded for reopening of assessment is as follows: a) The interest paid to financial institutions to the tune of Rs.1,85,36,371/- needs to be disallowed ... assessee company to declare profit as per AS-7 on percentage completion method. 4.10 According to the ld. A.R., the notice for reopening of assessment has been given after lapse of 4 years from the end of the assessment year 2007-08. As such, in view of the first proviso

Ge Energy Parts Inc., Noida vs. ACIT, Circle 1(3)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 738/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section 285

case of Blackstone Capital Partners (Singapore) VI FDI Three Pte. Ltd. (supra), Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, while dealing with the issue of reopening of assessment based on information received from third party, observed, though such information can form basis for an examination/investigation by the Assessing Officer, but the decision ... reopen the assessment has to be of the Assessing Officer and not of the third party. The Assessing Officer cannot merely do a cut and paste job for reopening the assessment without independent application of mind or verification or investigation. The aforesaid ratio laid down by Hon’ble jurisdictional High

Ge Energy Parts Inc., Noida vs. ACIT, Circle 1(3)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 737/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section 285

case of Blackstone Capital Partners (Singapore) VI FDI Three Pte. Ltd. (supra), Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, while dealing with the issue of reopening of assessment based on information received from third party, observed, though such information can form basis for an examination/investigation by the Assessing Officer, but the decision ... reopen the assessment has to be of the Assessing Officer and not of the third party. The Assessing Officer cannot merely do a cut and paste job for reopening the assessment without independent application of mind or verification or investigation. The aforesaid ratio laid down by Hon’ble jurisdictional High

Phool Chand Gupta(HUF), 1/90 Vidhyadhar Nagar vs. ITO, WD-4(2), Jaipur

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 393/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Jain (C.A.)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)

notice u/s 148 on 20.04.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 1,71,090/-. The Id. AO further observed that reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were communicated to the assessee, vide his letter dated 24.04.2017, the assessee filed objections against the proceedings u/s 148. The objections filed by the assessee ... ITAT Pune bench in the case of Mubarak Gafur Korabu v/s ITO ward 2 Pune (117 taxman.com) The main reason for reopening of assessment was that DLC rate of purchased property was more than purchase cost. The valuation by 8 ITA No. 393/JPR/2023 Phool Chand Gupta (HUF) vs. ITO registrar

ITO, Ward-20(1), New Delhi vs. Placid Buildwell P.Ltd, New Delhi

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

ITA 6744/DEL/2018[ 2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2024

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Nath Baranwal, CIT- DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in upholding the reopening of assessment done by the AO, despite the fact that the initiation of the proceedings under Section 147, read with Section ... circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law, in rejecting the contention of the assessee that reopening of assessment is bad without there being any whisper in the reasons recorded by the AO that the income has escaped assessment on account of failure

I.T.O., Ward-43(2), Kolkata vs. Champalal Omprakash, Kolkata

ITA 1546/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Judical Member & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos.1168&1169/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Champalal Omprakash......................................................................Appellant 49, Madan Mohan Burman Street, Kolkata-700007. [Pan:Aabfc8279L] Vs. Ito, Ward-43(2), Kolkata................................................................Respondent I.T.A. Nos.1545&1546/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Ito, Ward-43(2), Kolkata................................................................ Respondent Vs. Champalal Omprakash..........................................................................Appellant 49, Madan Mohan Burman Street, Kolkata-700007. [Pan:Aabfc8279L] Appearances By: Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 13, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 15, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are Cross-Appeals Preferred By The Assessee As Well As By The Department Against The Impugned Common Order Dated 19.03.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since Common Issues Involved

Section 131Section 250

information, the Assessing Officer noted that he has reasons to believe that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment and he accordingly reopened the assessment of the assessee. The assessee filed objections against the reopening of the assessment pleading that there was no valid reason for the Assessing Officer ... reopen the assessment as that the information provided by the Investigation Wing was vague. However, the Assessing Officer proceeded to frame the assessment without deciding the objections of the assessee against the reopening of the assessment. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued notices

I.T.O., Ward-43(2), Kolkata vs. Champalal Omprakash, Kolkata

ITA 1545/KOL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Judical Member & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos.1168&1169/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Champalal Omprakash......................................................................Appellant 49, Madan Mohan Burman Street, Kolkata-700007. [Pan:Aabfc8279L] Vs. Ito, Ward-43(2), Kolkata................................................................Respondent I.T.A. Nos.1545&1546/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Ito, Ward-43(2), Kolkata................................................................ Respondent Vs. Champalal Omprakash..........................................................................Appellant 49, Madan Mohan Burman Street, Kolkata-700007. [Pan:Aabfc8279L] Appearances By: Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 13, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 15, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are Cross-Appeals Preferred By The Assessee As Well As By The Department Against The Impugned Common Order Dated 19.03.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since Common Issues Involved

Section 131Section 250

information, the Assessing Officer noted that he has reasons to believe that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment and he accordingly reopened the assessment of the assessee. The assessee filed objections against the reopening of the assessment pleading that there was no valid reason for the Assessing Officer ... reopen the assessment as that the information provided by the Investigation Wing was vague. However, the Assessing Officer proceeded to frame the assessment without deciding the objections of the assessee against the reopening of the assessment. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued notices

Champalal Omprakash, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-43(2), Kolkata

ITA 1169/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Judical Member & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos.1168&1169/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Champalal Omprakash......................................................................Appellant 49, Madan Mohan Burman Street, Kolkata-700007. [Pan:Aabfc8279L] Vs. Ito, Ward-43(2), Kolkata................................................................Respondent I.T.A. Nos.1545&1546/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Ito, Ward-43(2), Kolkata................................................................ Respondent Vs. Champalal Omprakash..........................................................................Appellant 49, Madan Mohan Burman Street, Kolkata-700007. [Pan:Aabfc8279L] Appearances By: Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 13, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 15, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are Cross-Appeals Preferred By The Assessee As Well As By The Department Against The Impugned Common Order Dated 19.03.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since Common Issues Involved

Section 131Section 250

information, the Assessing Officer noted that he has reasons to believe that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment and he accordingly reopened the assessment of the assessee. The assessee filed objections against the reopening of the assessment pleading that there was no valid reason for the Assessing Officer ... reopen the assessment as that the information provided by the Investigation Wing was vague. However, the Assessing Officer proceeded to frame the assessment without deciding the objections of the assessee against the reopening of the assessment. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued notices

Champalal Omprakash, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-43(2), Kolkata

ITA 1168/KOL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Judical Member & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos.1168&1169/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Champalal Omprakash......................................................................Appellant 49, Madan Mohan Burman Street, Kolkata-700007. [Pan:Aabfc8279L] Vs. Ito, Ward-43(2), Kolkata................................................................Respondent I.T.A. Nos.1545&1546/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Ito, Ward-43(2), Kolkata................................................................ Respondent Vs. Champalal Omprakash..........................................................................Appellant 49, Madan Mohan Burman Street, Kolkata-700007. [Pan:Aabfc8279L] Appearances By: Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 13, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 15, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are Cross-Appeals Preferred By The Assessee As Well As By The Department Against The Impugned Common Order Dated 19.03.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since Common Issues Involved

Section 131Section 250

information, the Assessing Officer noted that he has reasons to believe that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment and he accordingly reopened the assessment of the assessee. The assessee filed objections against the reopening of the assessment pleading that there was no valid reason for the Assessing Officer ... reopen the assessment as that the information provided by the Investigation Wing was vague. However, the Assessing Officer proceeded to frame the assessment without deciding the objections of the assessee against the reopening of the assessment. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued notices

Siddharth Mehta, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward-2(3), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 2656/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshsiddharth Mehta, Vs. Ito, Flat No. 605, Arihand Ward-2(3), Altura, Plot No. Eh-3, Ghaziabad Abhay Khand-Ii, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad Pan: Akdpm0966C Assessee By : Shri Ranjan Chopra, Ca Revenue By: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15/01/2024

For Appellant: Shri Ranjan Chopra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)

conclude that income of the assessee to the extent of Rs. 29 lakhs representing cash deposit in bank had escaped assessment warranting reopening of assessment. Hence, I hold that assessment has been validly reopened in the instant case. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee challenging the validity of reopening

Mahindra Singla, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 2(4), Gurugram

ITA 1634/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshmahindra Singla, Vs. Ito, C/O. Kapil Goel, Adv, Ward-2(4), F-26/124, Sector-7, Gurugram Rohini, New Delhi Pan: Adhps9577Q Assessee By : Shri Kapil Goel, Adv Revenue By: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15/01/2024

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

Ward-2(4), Gurgaon (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’). 2. The assessee had challenged the validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act in the instant case. The inter connected issue involved therein is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition

M/S. Harsiddh Quarry Works, Aravalli vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 103/AHD/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.103/Ahd/2022 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015 M/S. Harsiddh Quarry Works, Principal Commissioner Of At Alva (Vatrak), Vs. Income Tax, Taluka Bayad, Ahmedabad. District Aravalli, Alva(Vaarak)-383325. Pan: Aaifh0303H

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 69

notice subsequently in the course of proceedings under the aforesaid provision, notwithstanding that such issue does not form part of reasons recorded for reopening of assessment. Thus, on a holistic reading of section 147 of the Act it becomes very much clear that along with escaped income for which ... assessment was reopened, the assessing officer can assess other escaped income which subsequently comes to his notice in course of re-assessment proceedings. In the facts of the present case, undisputedly, the issues raised by learned PCIT neither were the subject matter of reopening as per reasons recorded

Bhanuprasad Maganlal Patel, Ahmedabad vs. ACIT, Circle-3(3), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 7/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

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

Section 143(3)Section 54F

sale of land is correctly treated as business income by the Lower Authorities. It is further evident in other co-owner cases, similar reopening of assessments were done and one of the co- owner as against the reassessment order settled the issue under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Thus the case

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-1, Indore vs. Shri Ritesh Jain, Indore

ITA 794/IND/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore12 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani & It(Ss)Ano.14/Ind/2022 (Assesssment Year 2011-12

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

rebuttal. The additions made, merely relying on these information and documentation, without confronting the assessee cannot be accepted. Besides furnishing the reasons for reopening the assessment to the assessee company, there is nothing on record that such information/documentation was confronted to the assessee. Further, the AO has relied upon ... rule is made absolute. 6. We also direct that the ITO concerned shall follow the above procedure strictly in all such cases of reopening of assessment.” 9.2. The Hon’ble High Court has specifically observed that if the AO does not accept the objection filed by the assessee he shall

Monika Chakarvarty, Kota vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Circle

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 413/JPR/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jan 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 412 & 413/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2017-18 Monika Chakarvarty Prop. M/s Vipin Medicals, Nayapura, Kota. cuke Vs. DCIT Circle, Kota LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AELPC 3801 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Sidharth Ranka (Adv.), Shri Sorabh Harsh (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Anup Singh (Ad

For Appellant: Shri Sidharth Ranka (Adv.) &For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. Assessing Officer has grossly erred in not providing the reasons recorded to reopen the assessment proceedings hence the entire proceedings u/s. 148 of the Act is illegal and bad in law. 2. That on the facts and circumstances ... copy of reason recorded by stating as under:- Kindly refer to above cited submit. You have requested to provide reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. Your request is considered and reasons recorded for reopening assessment proceedings for A.Y. 2012-13 are hereby provided to you. Further, you are requested

Monika Chakarvarty, Kota vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Kota

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 412/JPR/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jan 2024AY 2012-2013

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

For Appellant: Shri Sidharth Ranka (Adv.) &For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. Assessing Officer has grossly erred in not providing the reasons recorded to reopen the assessment proceedings hence the entire proceedings u/s. 148 of the Act is illegal and bad in law. 2. That on the facts and circumstances ... copy of reason recorded by stating as under:- Kindly refer to above cited submit. You have requested to provide reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. Your request is considered and reasons recorded for reopening assessment proceedings for A.Y. 2012-13 are hereby provided to you. Further, you are requested

Reena Jain, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-37(1), Kol, Kolkata

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

ITA 503/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

actually there was no gain which is admissible as exempt from tax, it is nothing but colourable arrangement to evade tax and therefore reopening of assessment is warranted in this case. As such the long term capital gain of the assessee was not raised automatically in normal procedure