← 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

Dandvati Investments & Trading Company P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1916/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.3638/मुं/2012(िन.व. 2006-07) आअसं.1916/मुं/2014(िन.व. 2006-07) Dandvati Investments & Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. ‘The International’ 5Th Floor, 16, New Marine Lines Cross Road No.1, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaacd-3925-E ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Range 2(1) Mumbai. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ..... "ितवाद"/Respondent Mumbai – 400 020 आअसं.3635/मुं/2012 (िन.व. 2006-07) आअसं.1915/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2006-07) M/S. Firestorm Electronics Corporation Pvt. Ltd. ‘The International’ 5Th Floor, 16, New Marine Lines Cross Road No.1, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaacf-4730-D ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle -1(1), Mumbai.Room No.533, 5Th Floor,Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020..... "ितवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar & Ms.Ikshu ShahFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang Boman Irani /
Section 143(3)Section 14A

Assessment Year 2006-07. The appeal emanates from reassessment proceedings in the case of assessee. The assessee in appeal has assailed validity of reopening of assessment and the addition on merits. 14. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee narrating the facts of the case submitted that assessment order ... Assessing Officer and the same impermissible under the provisions of the Act. Thus, in view of our above findings, we hold reopening of assessment in the instant case as bad in law. Consequently, the impugned order is set-aside and the appeal of assessee is allowed. 18. Since, we have

Firestorm Electronics Corporation P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1915/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.3638/मुं/2012(िन.व. 2006-07) आअसं.1916/मुं/2014(िन.व. 2006-07) Dandvati Investments & Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. ‘The International’ 5Th Floor, 16, New Marine Lines Cross Road No.1, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaacd-3925-E ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Range 2(1) Mumbai. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ..... "ितवाद"/Respondent Mumbai – 400 020 आअसं.3635/मुं/2012 (िन.व. 2006-07) आअसं.1915/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2006-07) M/S. Firestorm Electronics Corporation Pvt. Ltd. ‘The International’ 5Th Floor, 16, New Marine Lines Cross Road No.1, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaacf-4730-D ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle -1(1), Mumbai.Room No.533, 5Th Floor,Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020..... "ितवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar & Ms.Ikshu ShahFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang Boman Irani /
Section 143(3)Section 14A

Assessment Year 2006-07. The appeal emanates from reassessment proceedings in the case of assessee. The assessee in appeal has assailed validity of reopening of assessment and the addition on merits. 14. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee narrating the facts of the case submitted that assessment order ... Assessing Officer and the same impermissible under the provisions of the Act. Thus, in view of our above findings, we hold reopening of assessment in the instant case as bad in law. Consequently, the impugned order is set-aside and the appeal of assessee is allowed. 18. Since, we have

Dandvati Investments & Trading Company P Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3638/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.3638/मुं/2012(िन.व. 2006-07) आअसं.1916/मुं/2014(िन.व. 2006-07) Dandvati Investments & Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. ‘The International’ 5Th Floor, 16, New Marine Lines Cross Road No.1, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaacd-3925-E ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Range 2(1) Mumbai. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ..... "ितवाद"/Respondent Mumbai – 400 020 आअसं.3635/मुं/2012 (िन.व. 2006-07) आअसं.1915/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2006-07) M/S. Firestorm Electronics Corporation Pvt. Ltd. ‘The International’ 5Th Floor, 16, New Marine Lines Cross Road No.1, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaacf-4730-D ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle -1(1), Mumbai.Room No.533, 5Th Floor,Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020..... "ितवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar & Ms.Ikshu ShahFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang Boman Irani /
Section 143(3)Section 14A

Assessment Year 2006-07. The appeal emanates from reassessment proceedings in the case of assessee. The assessee in appeal has assailed validity of reopening of assessment and the addition on merits. 14. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee narrating the facts of the case submitted that assessment order ... Assessing Officer and the same impermissible under the provisions of the Act. Thus, in view of our above findings, we hold reopening of assessment in the instant case as bad in law. Consequently, the impugned order is set-aside and the appeal of assessee is allowed. 18. Since, we have

Firestorm Electronics Corporaiton P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3635/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.3638/मुं/2012(िन.व. 2006-07) आअसं.1916/मुं/2014(िन.व. 2006-07) Dandvati Investments & Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. ‘The International’ 5Th Floor, 16, New Marine Lines Cross Road No.1, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaacd-3925-E ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Range 2(1) Mumbai. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ..... "ितवाद"/Respondent Mumbai – 400 020 आअसं.3635/मुं/2012 (िन.व. 2006-07) आअसं.1915/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2006-07) M/S. Firestorm Electronics Corporation Pvt. Ltd. ‘The International’ 5Th Floor, 16, New Marine Lines Cross Road No.1, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaacf-4730-D ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle -1(1), Mumbai.Room No.533, 5Th Floor,Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020..... "ितवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar & Ms.Ikshu ShahFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang Boman Irani /
Section 143(3)Section 14A

Assessment Year 2006-07. The appeal emanates from reassessment proceedings in the case of assessee. The assessee in appeal has assailed validity of reopening of assessment and the addition on merits. 14. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee narrating the facts of the case submitted that assessment order ... Assessing Officer and the same impermissible under the provisions of the Act. Thus, in view of our above findings, we hold reopening of assessment in the instant case as bad in law. Consequently, the impugned order is set-aside and the appeal of assessee is allowed. 18. Since, we have

ACIT 2(1), Mumbai vs. Firestorm Electronics Corp Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3538/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.3638/मुं/2012(िन.व. 2006-07) आअसं.1916/मुं/2014(िन.व. 2006-07) Dandvati Investments & Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. ‘The International’ 5Th Floor, 16, New Marine Lines Cross Road No.1, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaacd-3925-E ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Range 2(1) Mumbai. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ..... "ितवाद"/Respondent Mumbai – 400 020 आअसं.3635/मुं/2012 (िन.व. 2006-07) आअसं.1915/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2006-07) M/S. Firestorm Electronics Corporation Pvt. Ltd. ‘The International’ 5Th Floor, 16, New Marine Lines Cross Road No.1, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaacf-4730-D ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle -1(1), Mumbai.Room No.533, 5Th Floor,Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020..... "ितवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar & Ms.Ikshu ShahFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang Boman Irani /
Section 143(3)Section 14A

Assessment Year 2006-07. The appeal emanates from reassessment proceedings in the case of assessee. The assessee in appeal has assailed validity of reopening of assessment and the addition on merits. 14. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee narrating the facts of the case submitted that assessment order ... Assessing Officer and the same impermissible under the provisions of the Act. Thus, in view of our above findings, we hold reopening of assessment in the instant case as bad in law. Consequently, the impugned order is set-aside and the appeal of assessee is allowed. 18. Since, we have

DCIT, Corporate Cirlce - 3 (2), Chennai vs. M/S. Venture Lighting India Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 704/CHNY/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.704/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Venture Lighting India Ltd., Income Tax, Plot No. A-30, D-5, Phase Ii, Corporate Circle – 3(2), Zone-B, Mepz, Tambaram, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai 600 045. [Pan: Aaaca9284H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 19.10.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Chennai, Dated 09.03.2020 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Delayed By 78 Days In Filing The Appeal Due To Outbreak Of Covid-19 Pandemic & Hence, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned & Admitted The Appeal For 2

For Appellant: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234C

r.w.s. 144C of the Act was completed on 09.12.2011. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer has issued notice under section 148 of the Act for reopening the assessment by observing that on perusal of the records, the assessee company has not paid the self assessment tax payable as per the original return ... r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 12.03.2014. 4. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and challenged reopening of assessment on the ground that there is no tangible material available with the Assessing Officer while reopening the assessment. Only on the basis of materials already

Smt. Krishnaiah Ranganayaki, Cuddalore vs. ITO, Ward - 1, Cuddalore

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

ITA 618/CHNY/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 618/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 Smt. Krishnaiah Ranganayaki, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 17, Seetharam Nagar, Ward 1, Cuddalore 607 001. Cuddalore. [Pan:Aewpr9630P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri J. Prabhakar, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Puducherry, Dated 20.02.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 37 Days In Filing The Appeal Due To Outbreak Of Covid-19 Pandemic & Accordingly, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned & Admitted For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri J. Prabhakar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 54Section 54F

section 143(1) of the Act and subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 148 of the Act dated 21.03.2018 for reopening of assessment and the reasons recorded and communicated by the 3 I.T.A. No.618/Chny/20 Assessing Officer vide his letter dated 29.05.2018 to the assessee are extracted ... Rs.80,00,000/- from M/s. Vinayagar promoters and builders and claimed exemption u/s.54F.” The assessee has raised objection with regard to reopening of assessment and the Assessing Officer has considered the same and concluded the assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Non-Corporate Circle-7(1), Chennai vs. M/S. Rathna Cafe, Chennai

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

ITA 14/CHNY/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 14/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013 - 14 The Dcit, M/S. Ratna Café, Non Corporate Circle 7(1), Vs. No.255, Triplicane High Road, Chennai. Triplicane, Chennai – 600 005. Pan: Aaafr 0842B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate & Shri N. Arjunraj, Ca सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh:

For Appellant: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CITFor Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate &
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

appeal for adjudication. 3. The only issue in this appeal of Revenue is against the order of CIT(A) in quashing the reassessment / reopening of assessment and invocation of provisions of section 147 of the Act and holding the same as bad in law. 4. Brief facts are that ... originally on 30.09.2013, which was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act on 19.02.2015. Subsequently, the AO in view of audit objection reopened the assessment by issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act vide notice No.ITBA/AST/S/148/2018- 19/1015384877(1) dated 22.03.2019. The assessee filed its return of income in response to notice

DCIT, Chennai vs. B.V.Reddy Enterprises Pvt Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 1914/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1914/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. B.V. Reddy Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, New No. 21/Old No. 10A, First Floor, Corporate Circle 1(2), Umayal Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 010. [Pan:Aaccn2252L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 04.11.2022 : आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai, Dated 29.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Facts Are, In Brief, That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2010-11 On 13.10.2010 Admitting Total Income Of ₹.15,50,25,060/-. The Assessing Officer Has Completed The Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Dated

For Appellant: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 14Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

short] dated 2 I.T.A. No. 1914/Chny/19 25.03.2013 by assessing total income at ₹.15,50,25,060/-. 2.1 Subsequently, the Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment under section 147 of the Act by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act dated 27.02.2017 on the ground that there is an escapement ... after making additions/disallowances. 3. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and challenged the reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act as well as on merits. After considering the submissions and case law relied upon by the assessee

Resplenda Expressions Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward 5(4), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1364/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1363 & 1364/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Resplenda Expressions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer No. 138, Luz Church Road, Corporate Ward 5(4), Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. Chennai. [Pan: Aadcr6466M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Banusekar, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthilkumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 01.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Chennai Dated 07.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12. Both The Appeals Were Restored For The Limited Purposes Of Fresh Adjudication Of Legal Ground Vide Order In M.A. Nos. 92 & 93/Chny/2020 Dated 27.05.2022. 2. Facts Are, In Brief, That The Itat In I.T.A. Nos. 1363 &

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthilkumaran, CIT
Section 147

dated 04.11.2019 for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12, in para 2.2 it has been held as under: 2.2 Against the reopening of assessment, the assessee has not raised any specific ground before the ld. CIT(A) and thereby, the assessee has accepted the reopening of assessment, which ... raised any objection. 6. We have heard both the sides and perused the records. In this case, the legal ground in respect of reopening of assessment has not been adjudicated by the ld. CIT(A) and the ITAT also, by order dated 04.11.2019, inadvertently, dismissed the legal ground

Resplenda Expressions Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward 5(4), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1363/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1363 & 1364/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Resplenda Expressions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer No. 138, Luz Church Road, Corporate Ward 5(4), Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. Chennai. [Pan: Aadcr6466M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Banusekar, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthilkumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 01.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Chennai Dated 07.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12. Both The Appeals Were Restored For The Limited Purposes Of Fresh Adjudication Of Legal Ground Vide Order In M.A. Nos. 92 & 93/Chny/2020 Dated 27.05.2022. 2. Facts Are, In Brief, That The Itat In I.T.A. Nos. 1363 &

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthilkumaran, CIT
Section 147

dated 04.11.2019 for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12, in para 2.2 it has been held as under: 2.2 Against the reopening of assessment, the assessee has not raised any specific ground before the ld. CIT(A) and thereby, the assessee has accepted the reopening of assessment, which ... raised any objection. 6. We have heard both the sides and perused the records. In this case, the legal ground in respect of reopening of assessment has not been adjudicated by the ld. CIT(A) and the ITAT also, by order dated 04.11.2019, inadvertently, dismissed the legal ground