reopening of assessment — 4,262 case laws

DCIT, Bangalore vs. Shri. Sumir J Hinduja, Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and COs filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1374/BANG/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aacph7291Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aaeph5197H Appellant Respondent C.O. No.48/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1373/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent C.O. No.49/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1374/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Susan Dolores George, D.R. Respondent By : Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R.

For Appellant: Shri Susan Dolores George, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R

Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

receipt of thesaid information, the AO found that the appellant received a loan from the said company and reopened the assessment u/s 147 of the Act by issuing a notice u/s 148 on 12/3/2010 for the AY 2006-07 by recording the following reasons: "On verification of records ... clear from the notice itself.” 5. Against this assessee went in appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the reopening of assessment by observing as under:- “The other objection of the appellant that the letter of the ACIT, C-11(4), Bangalore states that the issue of section2

DCIT, Bangalore vs. Shri. Jagadish N Hinduja, Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and COs filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1373/BANG/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aacph7291Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aaeph5197H Appellant Respondent C.O. No.48/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1373/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent C.O. No.49/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1374/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Susan Dolores George, D.R. Respondent By : Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R.

For Appellant: Shri Susan Dolores George, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R

Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

receipt of thesaid information, the AO found that the appellant received a loan from the said company and reopened the assessment u/s 147 of the Act by issuing a notice u/s 148 on 12/3/2010 for the AY 2006-07 by recording the following reasons: "On verification of records ... clear from the notice itself.” 5. Against this assessee went in appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the reopening of assessment by observing as under:- “The other objection of the appellant that the letter of the ACIT, C-11(4), Bangalore states that the issue of section2

Shri.J M Vrushabendraiah, Hospet vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 299/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Narayana K.R., D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250

these additional evidences are admitted for adjudication. 4. The first issue in ground Nos.1 to 6 of the appeal are with regard to reopening of assessment. The relevant grounds are extracted below:- 1. The Order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), passed under section ... this section 147 of the Act if the AO “has reason to believe” that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, he could reopen the assessment. The term “has reason to believe” is wider enough to cover various circumstances including the information, material under assessment. In the present case

M/S Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Ltu)-1, Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 7933/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri O P Sharma, DR

Section 07Section 115Section 115JSection 143Section 147Section 30tSection 35

ground as under :- “The Honourable Commissioner of income tax (Appeal) – 3 has erred in confirming the action of the learned assessing officer in reopening the assessment u/s 147 of The Income Tax Act 1961 after a period of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year without bringing ... Pharmaceuticals Ltd. ; A.Ys. 09-10 & 10-11 Subsequently, on 30th March, 2016, notice under Section 07. 148 of the Act was issued proposing reopening of assessment recording following reasons :- “MESSER’S GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS LTD ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 – 10 REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING 1. The return of income has been filed

ACIT (Ltu-1), Mumbai vs. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 7742/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri O P Sharma, DR

Section 07Section 115Section 115JSection 143Section 147Section 30tSection 35

ground as under :- “The Honourable Commissioner of income tax (Appeal) – 3 has erred in confirming the action of the learned assessing officer in reopening the assessment u/s 147 of The Income Tax Act 1961 after a period of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year without bringing ... Pharmaceuticals Ltd. ; A.Ys. 09-10 & 10-11 Subsequently, on 30th March, 2016, notice under Section 07. 148 of the Act was issued proposing reopening of assessment recording following reasons :- “MESSER’S GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS LTD ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 – 10 REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING 1. The return of income has been filed

ACIT (Ltu-1), Mumbai vs. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 7582/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri O P Sharma, DR

Section 07Section 115Section 115JSection 143Section 147Section 30tSection 35

ground as under :- “The Honourable Commissioner of income tax (Appeal) – 3 has erred in confirming the action of the learned assessing officer in reopening the assessment u/s 147 of The Income Tax Act 1961 after a period of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year without bringing ... Pharmaceuticals Ltd. ; A.Ys. 09-10 & 10-11 Subsequently, on 30th March, 2016, notice under Section 07. 148 of the Act was issued proposing reopening of assessment recording following reasons :- “MESSER’S GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS LTD ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 – 10 REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING 1. The return of income has been filed

Devkinandan Bagadia, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Department NFAC ITO 17(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 367/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri T Shankar (D.R.)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)Section 68

enough. Then, the reasons to believe escapement of income need to spell out all the reasons and grounds available with the AO for reopening the assessment. The reasons must also paraphrase any investigation report, which may form the basis of the reasons and any enquiry conducted by the AO thereon ... must be enclosed along with the reasons. The Hon'ble High Court has underlined that consideration of the assessee's objections to the reopening of assessment is not a mechanical ritual, but it is a quasi judicial function. It has been mandated that the order disposing of the objections should

Devkinandan Bagadia, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 366/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri T Shankar (D.R.)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)Section 68

enough. Then, the reasons to believe escapement of income need to spell out all the reasons and grounds available with the AO for reopening the assessment. The reasons must also paraphrase any investigation report, which may form the basis of the reasons and any enquiry conducted by the AO thereon ... must be enclosed along with the reasons. The Hon'ble High Court has underlined that consideration of the assessee's objections to the reopening of assessment is not a mechanical ritual, but it is a quasi judicial function. It has been mandated that the order disposing of the objections should

Shrirang Vijay Rao, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-35(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 812/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2015-16 Shrirang Vijay Rao, Dy. Commissioner Of C-902, Mulund Shangrilla Chs, Vs. Income Tax-35(3), Mumbai. Near Saidham Temple, P.K. Road, Mulund (East), Mumbai-400 080 Pan Agipr6004K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews, (D.R.)

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69

Officer to delete the impugned addition. Accordingly, the Ground Nos. 2 to 4 of the assessee are allowed. 9. Ground No.1 is regarding reopening of assessment, the assessee has not pressed this ground, therefore this ground of appeal stands dismissed. ITA No.812/Mum/2021 8 10. In the result, the appeal

Narendra Mohan Singh, Mumbai vs. ITO 21(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3144/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Learned Cit(A) Were Partly Allowed. Still Aggrieved, The Assessee Has Filed These Appeals Before Us.

Section 148

before us. 3. We shall first take up the appeal filed for A.Y. 2004-05. Ground No. 1 & 2 relate to validity of reopening of assessment. We noticed that the assessee did not press these grounds before Ld CIT(A) and hence these grounds were 2 Narendra Mohan K. Singh

Narendra Mohan Singh, Mumbai vs. ITO 21(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3143/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Learned Cit(A) Were Partly Allowed. Still Aggrieved, The Assessee Has Filed These Appeals Before Us.

Section 148

before us. 3. We shall first take up the appeal filed for A.Y. 2004-05. Ground No. 1 & 2 relate to validity of reopening of assessment. We noticed that the assessee did not press these grounds before Ld CIT(A) and hence these grounds were 2 Narendra Mohan K. Singh