“reopening of assessment”

M/S Direct Logistic India P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (Appeals)-16, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Direct Logistics India Pvt. Ltd., V. Income Tax Officer – 9(3)(3) 2102 B-Wing, Oberoi Park View Room No. 471 Thakur Village, Kandivali (E) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400101 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacd8774D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ravi Sawana & Shri Dinesh Kukreja Department By : Smt Mahita Nair

hereby initiated.” 5. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), in appeal assessee has raised grounds against the reopening of assessment and objected to relying on the third party statement without granting copy of the same, also without giving opportunity of cross- examining the third party and making ... addition u/s. 68 of the Act. Ld.CIT(A) rejected the issue of reopening of assessment and not dealt with the issue of relying on third party statement without giving cross 5 M/s. Direct Logistics India Pvt. Ltd., examination to the assessee and also sustained the additions made by the Assessing

Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Company Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is al

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Maharashtra State Electricity Income-Tax Officer, Ward Transmission Company Ltd., 14(2)(3), Plot No. C-19 E Block, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Prakashganga, Bandra-Kurla Karve Road, Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaecm 2936 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Ketan Ved, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Harishankar Lal, Dr : Date Of Hearing 15/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/12/2022

upheld in 340 Products Ltd. Vs DCIT &Anr. (Del) 340 ITR 53 upheld in 340 IT 64 (SC had upheld the reopening of assessment as valid IT 64 (SC had upheld the reopening of assessment as valid IT 64 (SC had upheld the reopening of assessment as valid by clearly ... DCIT( ITAT, Kol) 98 ITD 78 had held the reopening of Ltd. Vs DCIT( ITAT, Kol) 98 ITD 78 had held the reopening of assessment is valid stating that change of opinion comes to assessment is valid stating that change of opinion comes to assessment is valid stating that change

Pride Paradise and Development Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Office -WD 7(3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.50/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) Pride Paradise & बिधम/ Ito, Ward-7(3)(1) Room No. 126J, 1St Floor, Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 601, Orbit Plaza, New Aayakar Bhavan, Marine Prabhadevi Road, Lines, Mumbai-400020. Prabhadevi, Mumbai- 400025. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp3042N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Bhupendra Shah Revenue By: Shri Mahender Ahuja सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22/11/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 17.11.2021 For The Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Has Challenged The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of The Ao By Which The Ao Has Made An Addition Of Rs.6,00,000/-. 3. Brief Facts Are That The Assessee Had Filed Its Return Of Income For Ay. 2007-08 On 31.10.2007 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.4,820/-. Thereafter, The Return Of Income Was Scrutized U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Vide Order Dated 09.12.2009 Accepting The Return Of Income. Later On, The Ao Received An Information From Dgit (Inv.), Mumbai Pursuant To A Search Carried

have already elapsed/expired, therefore, first proviso to section 147 of the Act comes into play, and therefore, the AO ought not to have reopened the assessment without spelling out in the reasons recorded (by the AO) before reopening that assessment that assessee failed to disclose true and full disclosure ... recorded which is found placed at page no. 18 to 19 of the PB. After receiving the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening the assessment, the assessee objected to the reopening u/s 147 of the Act which is dated 04.10.2014 3 A.Y. 2007-08 Pride Paradise and Development

Vipinlumar Sanklecha, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 16 (3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6612/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12) Vipinkumar Sanklecha बिधम/ Ito, Ward-16(3)(5) Room No. 447, 4Th Floor, A/303, Bhattad Tower, Opp. Vs. Kora Kendra Ground, R. M. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Bhattad Road, Borivali (W), Road, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400092. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aayps5062N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ajay Singh Revenue By: Shri Mahender Ahuja सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21/11/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-07, Mumbai Dated 02.08.2019 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Drew Our Attention To Ground Nos. 1 & 2 Which Are The Legal Issues Raised By The Assessee Against The Action Of The Ao To Have Reopened The Assessment Without Satisfying The Condition Precedents As Laid Down U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) As Well As For Not Following The Hon’Ble Supreme Court As Well The Hon’Ble Bombay High Court Decision Cited By Him. The Ground Nos. 1, 2 & 3.1 Reads As Under: - “1. The Id. Cit (A) Erred In Confirming The Reopening Of Assessment Without Appreciating That The Reopening Of The Assessment Is Bad In Law, Invalid & Liable To Be Quashed In As Much As:

attention to ground nos. 1 & 2 which are the legal issues raised by the assessee against the action of the AO to have reopened the assessment without satisfying the condition precedents as laid down u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) as well ... Court decision cited by him. The ground nos. 1, 2 & 3.1 reads as under: - “1. The Id. CIT (A) erred in confirming the reopening of assessment without appreciating that the reopening of the assessment is bad in law, invalid and liable to be quashed in as much

DCIT, CC - 2(4), Mumbai vs. Mishal Nickunj Shah Shri. L/H. of Late Nickunj Gunvantrai Shah, Mumbai

Accordingly, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Orissa High section 153A did not refer to any document Court] unearthed during course of search, assumption of jurisdiction under section 153A for reopening of assessment was without legal basis. Copy of said decision is enclosed herewith vide Page No. 26 to 31 of Paper Book ... Delhi): It was held that, the search or requisition must be of such a character as topersuade the Assessing Officer to even reopen closed assessments and thereshould be incriminating material on search or requisition for issue of anotice under section 153A. Pr. CIT v. MeetaGutgutia [2017] 395 ITR 526 (Delhi

DCIT, CC - 2(4), Mumbai vs. Mishal Nickunj Shah Shri. L/H. of Late Nickunj Gunvantrai Shah, Mumbai

Accordingly, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Orissa High section 153A did not refer to any document Court] unearthed during course of search, assumption of jurisdiction under section 153A for reopening of assessment was without legal basis. Copy of said decision is enclosed herewith vide Page No. 26 to 31 of Paper Book ... Delhi): It was held that, the search or requisition must be of such a character as topersuade the Assessing Officer to even reopen closed assessments and thereshould be incriminating material on search or requisition for issue of anotice under section 153A. Pr. CIT v. MeetaGutgutia [2017] 395 ITR 526 (Delhi

ACIT -1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Adhiraj Construction Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

Marine Gems Pvt. Limited Rs. 2,35,00,000/- Total Rs. 7,20,00,000/- Hence, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment of the year under consideration by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act dated 8.12.2016. Copy of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment was furnished ... issue. 22. We shall now take up the Cross objection filed by the assessee, wherein the assessee is challenging the validity of the reopening of assessment. Since we have confirmed the deletion of the addition, the legal issue urged by the assessee shall become academic in nature. Accordingly, we find

ACIT 6(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Shri. Dattatray Pandurang Mhaiskar, Mumbai

In the result, the impugned notice is set aside

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2468/Mum/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri. Dattatray Jayantika Singh Pandurang Mhaiskar Asst. Commissioner Of Mumbai Income Tax 6(1) (1) 501, Dattashram Lane बिधम/ Mumbai No.1 Hindu Colony, Room No 504, Aaykar Vs. Dadar, Mumbai Bhavan, M.K.Road, 400014 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aatpm1257A (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Pooja Rander प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ashish Kumar (Sr. Ar.) सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 27.12.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 27.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 20.01.2021, Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), 53 Mumbai

ACIT [2020] 420 ITR 256 (Bom), Hon'ble High Court of Bombay has also held that since impugned notice u/s 148 of reopening of assessment was issued against a dead person, same was invalid and was to be set aside along with assessment order. The relevant part of the decision ... death certificate of Shri Shyamsundar Dhumatkar before the Income-tax authorities, indicating that he died on 14/10/2016. Thus, the impugned notice of reopening of assessment was issued on a dead person. There are several judgments of different High Courts holding that the notice or reopening of assessment is invalid

Hitesh Jitendra Parikh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-5(1)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2010-11

there is no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts and as such notice for reopening of assessment issued beyond a period of four years is bad in law. 9. I have perused the computation of taxable income filed by the assessee

M/S Realtime Properties Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-5(3), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopals (A.Y.2011-12)

opening proceeding u/s.147 by issue of notice dated 27.03.2018 u/s 148 were based on invalid reasons to believe for reopening the assessment proceeding. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law order of the learned AO and order of the learned CIT(A) upholding ... assessee has filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed ground of appeal against the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act holding that assessee had failed to avail the opportunity to represent the case before the Assessing Officer despite affording several opportunities

General Electric Company, Mumbai vs. Asst DIT (It) 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2001-02 is allowed and the appeal of revenue for A

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri M Balaganeshm/S. General Electric Company, C/O Kpmg, Lodha Excelus, Apollo Mills Compound, N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400011 Pan Aaacg5399M …Appellant. Vs. Asst. Director Of Income Tax, (International Taxation)-3(1), Room No.136, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N M Road Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400038. ….Respondent. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-3(1), Mumbai-400 038 ….Appellant. Vs. M/S. General Electric Company, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai. ….Respondent. Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Ms. Fereshte Sethna, Shri Mrunal Parekh, Shri Abhishek Tilak & Shri Ameya Pany. Revenue By : Ms. Surabi Sharma, Cit D.R. Shri Sunil Umap, Cit- D.R. Date Of Hearing : 15.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2022

section 148 of the Act. In the said letter, the assessee had duly sought for reasons recorded by the learned Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment. This letter is enclosed in pages 6 and 7 of Paper Book Vol.1 filed before us. On 20.11.2008, notice under section ... said letter also the assessee once again reminded the learned Assessing Officer to furnish a copy of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. This letter is enclosed in page 43 of Paper Book Vol.I filed before us. Thereafter, the copy of reasons recorded were communicated to the assessee

DDIT (It) 3(1), Mumbai vs. General Electric Company, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2001-02 is allowed and the appeal of revenue for A

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri M Balaganeshm/S. General Electric Company, C/O Kpmg, Lodha Excelus, Apollo Mills Compound, N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400011 Pan Aaacg5399M …Appellant. Vs. Asst. Director Of Income Tax, (International Taxation)-3(1), Room No.136, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N M Road Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400038. ….Respondent. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-3(1), Mumbai-400 038 ….Appellant. Vs. M/S. General Electric Company, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai. ….Respondent. Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Ms. Fereshte Sethna, Shri Mrunal Parekh, Shri Abhishek Tilak & Shri Ameya Pany. Revenue By : Ms. Surabi Sharma, Cit D.R. Shri Sunil Umap, Cit- D.R. Date Of Hearing : 15.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2022

section 148 of the Act. In the said letter, the assessee had duly sought for reasons recorded by the learned Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment. This letter is enclosed in pages 6 and 7 of Paper Book Vol.1 filed before us. On 20.11.2008, notice under section ... said letter also the assessee once again reminded the learned Assessing Officer to furnish a copy of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. This letter is enclosed in page 43 of Paper Book Vol.I filed before us. Thereafter, the copy of reasons recorded were communicated to the assessee

Deepak Srichand Bathija, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2600/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Deepak Srichand Bathija बिधम/ Nfac, Delhi 5-B, Elegant Apartment, 3, Room No. 356 C.R. Vs. Sobhani Road, Cuffe Building, New Delhi- Parade, Mumbai-400005. 110002. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaapb6001A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hari Raheja Revenue By: Shri Vaibhav Jain सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 25.08.2022 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Filed Eleven (11) Grounds, However, At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Drew Our Attention To Ground No. 1 Wherein The Assessee Has Challenged The Validity Of Reopening Of The Assessment Made By The Ao U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Without Satisfying The Condition Precedents U/S 147 Of The Act. Since It Is A Legal Issue We Would Like To Adjudicate The Same First.

Section 147 of the Act, if the AO intends to re-open the assessment, then AO has to record the reason to reopen the assessment, wherein he should record the “reason to believe, escapement of income”. It is settled principle of law that “reason to believe” postulates a foundation based ... adjudicate as to whether AO has satisfied in the reasons recorded, the condition precedent i.e, reason to believe escapement of income) to validly reopen the assessment. 4. On the touchstone of the aforesaid settled principles of law, let us see whether the AO satisfies the requirement of law for successfully

Asstt. CIT - 1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Global Holding Corporation P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit-1(1)(1), M/S Global Holding 579, Aayakar Bhavan, Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Vs. M.K. Road, 201A, Janmbhoomi Chambers, Mumbai-400020. 29 Walchand Hirachand, Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400038. Pan No. Aaacn 8301 L Appellant Respondent : Revenue By Mr. Rakesh Garg, Cit-Dr : Assessee By Mr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Adv. & Ms. Neelam Jadhav, Ar : Date Of Hearing 11/10/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 22/12/2022

onus casted u/s. 68 of the Act. Aggrieved by the reopening of its onus casted u/s. 68 of the Act. Aggrieved by the reopening of assessment for A.Y. 2012 assessment for A.Y. 2012-13 and the additions made by the 13 and the additions made by the Assessing Officer

Saytidevi Kantilal Bhandari, Mumbai vs. The ITO - Ward- 19(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1734/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Saytidevi Kantilal Bhandari बिधम/ Ito, Ward-19(3)(2) Room No. 224, 2Nd Floor, 162, Tp Street, 6 Vs. Kumbharwada, Mumbai- Matru Mandir, Tardeo 400004. Road, Mumbai-400007. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aghpb9079K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sanjiv M. Shah & Rajesh Chamaria Revenue By: Smt. Nayana K. Kumar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax-30, Mumbai Dated 16.12.2019 For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. At The Outset, The Assessee Drew Our Attention To The Grounds Of Appeal Wherein He Has Raised The Legal Issue Regarding Validity Of Reopening Of Assessment By Ao U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”).

outset, the assessee drew our attention to the grounds of appeal wherein he has raised the legal issue regarding validity of reopening of assessment by AO u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”). 3. Brief facts relating to the legal issue are that the assessee ... Later on, the AO received information from the DDIT(Inv.) Wing, Mumbai dated 08.11.2012 based on which he recorded reasons for reopening the assessment of AY 2008-09 on 27.03.2015 u/s 147 of the Act and consequently issued notice u/s 148 of the Act. Then during the re-assessment proceedings

Kalpataru Ferroalloys Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 5(2)(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Kalpataru Ferroalloys Limited V. Income Tax Officer – 5(2)(2) 32/34, 2Nd Floor, Keshav Bhavan Mumbai 1St Carpenter Street, Mumbai - 400004 Pan: Aadck4077F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Radha Habe Department Represented By : Nimesh Yadav

Supreme Court. 2. In the facts and circumstances of case and in law, the learned CIT(A)-10, Mumbai erred in confirming the reopening of assessment by Assessing Officer merely on the basis of statement of third party without providing the opportunity of cross examination of the witnesses relied upon ... erred in upholding the reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer immediately after disposing off the objection raised by the assessee against reopening of assessment, 4 M/s. Kalpataru Ferroalloys Limited thereby violating the law laid down by Honorable Bombay High Court in the case of Asian Paints Ltd. v. DCIT

Pine Tree Consultants P.Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Circle - 3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No.1696/Mum/2020 (A.Y: 2013-14) Pine Tree Consultants Vs. Dcit, Circle – 3(2)(2) Pvt Ltd, No.104, Raheja Aayakar Bhavan, Centre, 1St Floor, Mk Road, Free Press Journal Mumbai -400020. Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai -400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcp8816F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Neelkanth Khandelwal.Ar Respondent By : Ms.Deepika Arora.Dr Date Of Hearing 23.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Are The Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Cit(A))-8 Mumbai Passed Under Sec250 Of The Act

assessee has appeared from time to time and submitted the details. The AO has provided the reasons for reopening of assessment ITA No. 1695, 1696& 1697/Mum/2020 Pine Tree Solutions Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. and dealt on facts of search case pertaining to shri praveenkumarjain& group on 01.10.2013, the A.O. found that

Shri. Arvind Satinderpal Ahuja, Mumbai vs. ITO (It) 1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleshri Arvinderpal Satinderpal Ahuja V. Ito (International Taxation) -1(1)(1) Room No. 114, 1St Floor 21/23A, Sunset Heights Scindia House, Ballard Pier Pali Hill, Bandra (W) Mumbai – 400050 Mumbai - 400038 Pan: Addpa9627P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pankaj Toprani & Ms. Krupa Toprani Department By : Shri Manoj Sinha

appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and filed detailed submissions along with the various case laws and it was also agitated the issue of reopening of assessment. Ld.CIT(A) after considering the detailed submissions rejected the contentions relating the reopening as well as merit and observed as under: - 6 Shri Arvinderpal ... that the notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued by the ITO (IT)-1(1)(1) on 5.5.2017 after recording the reasons for reopening the assessment u/s.147 of the Act. The Assessing Officer further issued notices u/s.143(2) and 143(1) of the Act and also provided the reasons