“reopening of assessment”

Shri Valmik Thapar, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

lakhs. Additional Ground Page 2 of 53 4. On 7/01/2019, assessee moved an application for admission of additional ground challenging reopening of assessment u/s 147 of The Act as Under:- “That the impugned assessment so framed is bad in law and on facts, inasmuch as, the initiation of proceedings ... assessment u/s 147 of the act by way of an additional ground of appeal, which is already admitted. Arguments of Assessee on Reopening of assessment 30. The learned authorised representative contesting ground of the reopening of the appeal submitted that reopening has been made for the reason that assessee

Naveen Infradevelopers & Engineers Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-17(2), New Delhi

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Naveen Infradevelopers & Vs. Dcit, Engineers Pvt. Ltd, Circle-17(2), Sardar Patel Marg, New Delhi Diplomatic Enclave, New Delhi Pan: Aadcn2121M (Appellant) (Respondent)

expenditure. 6. Assessee aggrieved with the order of the learned assessing officer preferred an appeal before the learned CIT – A wherein assessee objected reopening of assessment as well as contested addition on the merits. With respect to the challenge of grounds on reopening of the assessment, Ld CIT (A) dealt ... crores has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the income tax act, 1961. Coming to the provisions of reopening of assessment proceedings, prior to 1989, Section 147 provided for two grounds to reopen concluded assessments:- i. On basis of information received by the assessing officer, assessment could

M/S vs. R Enterprises, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2007-08

being not in accordance with law should be quashed. 13. The learned DR on the other hand submitted that the Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment on the basis of information available at his disposal and therefore the basis of reopening of the assessment is fully justified under the facts ... book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. We find the Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment in the instant case on the basis of information received from REIC through Income Tax Officer, Ward 43(4), New Delhi, the reasons

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. K.S. Chawla & Songs (HUF), New Delhi

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing)

Cross Objection are as under :- 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred both in law and facts of the case in holding the reopening of assessment proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") as valid and fiirther erred in rejecting the submissions ... formation of the reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment ceased to exist, the jurisdictional condition precedent to exercise of power to reopen the assessment was not fulfilled. The impugned notice and order are quashed.” Henceforth, in view to the above judgement, the impugned notice and order deserves

Addl. CIT, Special Range-7, New Delhi vs. Rites Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

ground of escapement of income and re-verification of fact already available on record. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment read as under: “In this case, the assessee fifed its return of income on 25.09.2009 at an income ... part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts been satisfied, the Tribunal correctly held that the notice of reopening of assessment was invalid. No question of law arises.” 10. The judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in principle will apply mutatis mutandis on the present ‘reasons

Rites Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Spl. Range- 7, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

ground of escapement of income and re-verification of fact already available on record. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment read as under: “In this case, the assessee fifed its return of income on 25.09.2009 at an income ... part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts been satisfied, the Tribunal correctly held that the notice of reopening of assessment was invalid. No question of law arises.” 10. The judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in principle will apply mutatis mutandis on the present ‘reasons

DCIT, Circle- 62(1), New Delhi vs. Paveljeet Singh Ruppal, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

failure on the part of the appellant, to disclose fully 86 truly all material facts; 5 iii. The AO has reopened the assessment merely on the basis of audit objection and without having any tangible material to show that income has escaped assessment; iv. The reopening of the assessment amounts ... such addition and surprisingly, after more than three years of the said rectification order u/s 154 of the Act, the AO has reopened the assessment on the same issue. This flip flop on the part of the AO is nothing but mere change of opinion and there is nothing

Anand Pershad Jaiswal, New Delhi vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, all appeals filed by the respective assesses are

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

resident as mentioned by the Assessing Officer in clause 5 of page1 of the assessment order. The Assessing Officer in the instant case, reopened the assessment after recording the following reasons:- “Reasons for reopening u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the case of Late Sh. LadliPershadJaiswal through ... treated as return filed in respect of notice u/s 148 of the Act. The assessee also requested to provide the reasons for reopening of assessment u/s 147/148 of the Act. which were duly provided to the assessee. 5. The assessee filed his objections for reopening of assessment stating the following

Anand Pershad Jaiswal, New Delhi vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, all appeals filed by the respective assesses are

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

resident as mentioned by the Assessing Officer in clause 5 of page1 of the assessment order. The Assessing Officer in the instant case, reopened the assessment after recording the following reasons:- “Reasons for reopening u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the case of Late Sh. LadliPershadJaiswal through ... treated as return filed in respect of notice u/s 148 of the Act. The assessee also requested to provide the reasons for reopening of assessment u/s 147/148 of the Act. which were duly provided to the assessee. 5. The assessee filed his objections for reopening of assessment stating the following

Sh. Karamjit S. Jaiwswal, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all appeals filed by the respective assesses are

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

resident as mentioned by the Assessing Officer in clause 5 of page1 of the assessment order. The Assessing Officer in the instant case, reopened the assessment after recording the following reasons:- “Reasons for reopening u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the case of Late Sh. LadliPershadJaiswal through ... treated as return filed in respect of notice u/s 148 of the Act. The assessee also requested to provide the reasons for reopening of assessment u/s 147/148 of the Act. which were duly provided to the assessee. 5. The assessee filed his objections for reopening of assessment stating the following

Sh. Karamjit S. Jaiwswal, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all appeals filed by the respective assesses are

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

resident as mentioned by the Assessing Officer in clause 5 of page1 of the assessment order. The Assessing Officer in the instant case, reopened the assessment after recording the following reasons:- “Reasons for reopening u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the case of Late Sh. LadliPershadJaiswal through ... treated as return filed in respect of notice u/s 148 of the Act. The assessee also requested to provide the reasons for reopening of assessment u/s 147/148 of the Act. which were duly provided to the assessee. 5. The assessee filed his objections for reopening of assessment stating the following

Rajesh Gupta (HUF), New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 31(4), New Delhi

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year : 2011-12 Rajesh Gupta Huf, Vs. Ito, C/O-Raj Kumar & Associates, Ward-31(4), Chartered Accountants, R. No.1209, Civic Centre, L-7A (Lgf), South Extension New Delhi-110002 Part-Ii, New Delhi-110049 Pan-Aaghr9262M

declaring total income of Rs.10,92,630/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment by recording the following reasons:- “Reasons for re-opening of the assessment in case of Sh. Rajesh Gupta (HUF) for A.Y.2011-12 u/s 147 of the Income ... reassessment proceedings in a mechanical manner without application of mind. Referring to the following decisions, he submitted that where, the Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment on the basis of information from the Investigation Wing and without independent application of mind, such reassessment proceedings are held to be invalid being

Digvijay Advisor Pvt. Ltd, Ghaziabad Up vs. ITO Ward-7(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year : 2008-09

creditor and genuineness of the transaction. Rejecting the various explanation given by the assessee and rejecting the objections of the assessee to such reopening of assessment for non-issue of notice u/s 148, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 147/143(3) of the Act, determining the total income ... Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee apart from challenging the addition on merit, challenged the validity of reopening of assessment. However, the learned CIT(A) was also not satisfied with the arguments advanced by the assessee and upheld the validity of reopening of assessment proceedings as well

Sungrow Impex Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-24(3), New Delhi

In the result appeal of assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

assessee found that share capital and share premium of the assessee has increased by Rs.95 lacs in assessment year under appeal. The A.O. reopened the assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and issued notice under section 148, in response to which, assessee filed the return ... Assessee submitted that the A.O. received the information from CIT, Central-2, Delhi on 15.03.2012, but, the A.O. recorded the reasons for reopening of assessment only on 17.03.2017 i.e., after considerable period of 05 years. In the meantime, even before recording the reasons for reopening of the assessment and information

Raman Sood, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-28(4), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

addition of Rs.2,52,18,773/- on account of alleged bogus purchase. 2.1 The assessee approached the Ld. First Appellate Authority challenging the reopening of assessment as well as challenging the addition on merits of the case. 2.2 The Ld. First Appellate Authority, however, upheld the initiation of re-assessment ... declaring income of Rs.2,19,175/-. (b) That the ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the reasons for reopening of assessment by the ld. AO are based on the borrowed satisfaction and that there is no application of independent mind by the PCIT in granting approval

Space Chem Engineers Private Limited, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward-2(3), Ghaziabad

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaasstt. Year 2008-09

filed on behalf of the assesee.I have also considered the various decisions cited before me. I find the AO in the instant case reopened the assessment u/s 147 of the Act by recording reasons that the assessee has received share capital / share application money of Rs. 30 lacs from ... entities-Tribunal allowed assessee's appeal on merits-Revenue appealed against appellate order on merits-Assessee's cross appeal was on correctness of reopening of assessment- Tribunal upheld assessee's cross objections and dismissed Revenue's appeal holding that there was no proper application of mind by concerned sanctioning authority