“reopening of assessment”

Karan Khurana, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 48(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R Kumar

formation of belief that income has escaped assessment, sufficiency of such information cannot be gone into while deciding the issue of validity of reopening. The assessing officer can also not make enquiries as no proceedings were pending before him for the relevant assessment year. In the above view 11 ITA.No ... 1783/Del./2019 Shri Karan Khurana, Delhi. of the matter, we are in agreement with finding of the Ld. CIT(A) that the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act, was valid." 5. The live link between the material provided by the investigation Wing and the reasons for belief that

Parveen Garg, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-40(4), New Delhi

In the result, this issue is decided against the assessee

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

year under consideration, whereas the assessee has filled return of income on 29.03.2011 for A.Y 2010-11 of Rs.1,49,070/-. The A.O. reopened the assessment under section 147 of the I.T. Act that income of Rs.3,41,81,656/- has escaped assessment for failure on the part ... regard to the legal proposition that the First Appellate Authority cannot consider new source of income. However, in the present case the A.O. reopened the assessment because it was found that there were cash deposits in several Bank accounts of the assessee which do not match with the returned income

Parveen Garg, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-40(4), New Delhi

In the result, this issue is decided against the assessee

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

year under consideration, whereas the assessee has filled return of income on 29.03.2011 for A.Y 2010-11 of Rs.1,49,070/-. The A.O. reopened the assessment under section 147 of the I.T. Act that income of Rs.3,41,81,656/- has escaped assessment for failure on the part ... regard to the legal proposition that the First Appellate Authority cannot consider new source of income. However, in the present case the A.O. reopened the assessment because it was found that there were cash deposits in several Bank accounts of the assessee which do not match with the returned income

Late Shri Ganpat Singh, L/H Bikram Singh, Rewari vs. ITO, Ward-1, Rewari

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaasstt. Year 2009-10

reassessment proceedings by observing as under :- I have carefully considered the facts of the case, assessee’s ''submissions, assessment order and find that: Reopening of assessment : In the assessment order, the A.O. has made addition of Rs.8,90,000/- on account of 4.1 unexplained cash ... case law cited by the assessee of Bir Bahadur Singh Sijwali vs. ITO it is held that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment are to be examined on a stand alone basis. At the stage of recording the reasons for reopening the assessment what is necessary is formation ofprima

R.S. Shares & Securities Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 20(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

Limited. He has referred to PB 5 to 10 which is the rejection order of the AO deciding objection of the assessee against reopening of assessment dated 27.11.2017 in which AO has mentioned that assessee has shifted loss through broker Mansukh Securities and Finance Limited. He has, therefore, submitted that ... client code modification. In the case of M/s. Coronation Agro Industries Ltd. vs. DCIT (supra), the Hon’ble Bombay High Court quashed reopening of assessment on identical issue. It has been held in the said judgment as under: “4. We note that the reasons in support of the impugned notice

Madhu Apartment Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 16(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

report of the Investigation Wing that the assessee has received accommodation entries from Shri Surendra Kumar Jain and Virendra Kumar Jain controlled/managed companies, reopened the assessment by recording the following reasons:- “ANNEXURE- ‘A’ M/s Shri Balkishan Agarwal Glass Industries Ltd. J-4-126-B, D.D.A. Flats Kalka Ji, New Delhi ... return filed by the assessee along with the audited accounts before recording reasons and has mentioned that no return has been filed while reopening the assessment and the ld. Addl. CIT, without application of mind, has simply mentioned, “I am satisfied that this is a 17 ITA.Nos.3869 & 3870/Del./2018

Madhu Apartment Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 16(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

report of the Investigation Wing that the assessee has received accommodation entries from Shri Surendra Kumar Jain and Virendra Kumar Jain controlled/managed companies, reopened the assessment by recording the following reasons:- “ANNEXURE- ‘A’ M/s Shri Balkishan Agarwal Glass Industries Ltd. J-4-126-B, D.D.A. Flats Kalka Ji, New Delhi ... return filed by the assessee along with the audited accounts before recording reasons and has mentioned that no return has been filed while reopening the assessment and the ld. Addl. CIT, without application of mind, has simply mentioned, “I am satisfied that this is a 17 ITA.Nos.3869 & 3870/Del./2018

Vikas Chowdhary, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 36(4), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

Year 2011-12 Details of the Assessing Officer Income Tax Officer, Ward 36(4), New having jurisdiction over the Assessee Delhi. Reasons for reopening of assessment in the case of Sh. Vikas Chowdhary AY 2011-12 u/s 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961 Sh. Vikas Chowdhary S/o Sh. Surender Singh ... which it was held as under : “Held, dismissing the appeal, that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment under section 147, issuing a notice under section 148 did not meet the statutory conditions. As already held by the Appellate Tribunal, there was a repetition

Mr. Abhisar Sharma, Noida vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2005-06 Mr. Abhisar Sharma, Vs Dcit, B-602, Plot No.F-2, Circle-64(1), The Crescent, B-Block, Room No.314, Sector-50, Pratyakshkar Bhawan, Noida. Civic Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aigps3840N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate & Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca Revenue By : Shri J.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr. Date Of Hearing : 12.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30Th March, 2015 Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act By The Pcit-22, Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2005-06. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 22Nd July, 2005 Declaring Income Of Rs.9,00,355/-. The Assessee In The Return Of Income Had Declared Income From Salary At Rs.9,81,964/- & Loss From House Property At Rs.81,609/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 4Th July, 2006 At The Same Income. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Dated 27Th March, 2012 After Obtaining Prior Approval Of The Addl. Cit, Range-7, New Delhi, Vide His Letter No.526 Dated 27Th March, 2012. The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 147/143(3) On 28Th March, 2013, Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.11,03,270/- As Against The Returned Income Of Rs.9,00,355/- Wherein He Made The Following Additions:-

economy tickets and US $ 1000 received by him from M/s NDTV Ltd. 55 37 1) Thus, the reasons outlined in reopening of assessment do not stand proved in view of the employment contract provided by M/s NDTV Ltd. and other investigations conducted as elaborated above m). The statements recorded

Addl. CIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ircon International Ltd., New Delhi

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

which enables the authority to legitimately reopen the completed assessment. In absence of this objective “trigger”, the AO does not possess jurisdiction to reopen the assessment. It is at the next stage that the question, whether the reopening of assessment amounts to “review” or “change of opinion” arises. In other ... condition and if the concept of “change of opinion" is removed, as contended on behalf of the Department, then, in the garb of reopening the assessment, review would take place. One must treat the concept of “change of opinion” as an in-built test to check abuse of power

Sh. Mahesh Prakash Sharma, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhuand, Sh. Anil Chaturvedi(Through Video Conferencing) Sh. Mahesh Prakash Vs. Ito, Sharma, Ward – 37(2), 430, Hawa Singh Block, New Delhi Asiad Village, New Delhi-110049 Pan : Aaaps 3525 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. C. Yadav, Advocate Revenue By Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 17.12.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.01.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, New Delhi Passed Under Section 143(3)/147 Of The Act, 1961 Order Dated 18.08.2015 For Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. The Relevant Facts As Culled From The Material On Records Are As Under: A.Ys. 2007-08 3. Assessee Is An Individual Stated To Be Doctor Deriving Income From Profession, Salary, House Property & Other Sources. Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For A.Y. 2007-08 Declaring Total Income At Rs.5,84,935/- & The Same Was Initially Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act. Subsequently, The Case Was Reopened For Reassessment U/S 147 & Accordingly Notice U/S 148 Was Issued & Served Upon The Assessee. Thereafter, The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Assessment Was Framed U/S 147/143(3) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 11.03.2014 & The Total Income Was Determined At Rs. 15,84,940/-.

erred on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, in confirming the action of the AO of reopening the assessment u/s 148 of the IT Act, 1961. 2. That the CIT(A) has erred on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... validity of reassessment proceedings u/s 148 and in subsequent grounds challenging the addition on merits. 8. With respect to the challenge to the reopening of assessment, before us, Learned AR submitted that notice has been issued purely on the borrowed satisfaction of DIT (Investigation) and no belief has been recorded

Ssg Mercantile Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-24(1), New Delhi

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

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year : 2008-09

income filed in response to the notice u/s. 148 of the Act and also requested for supply of copy of reasons for reopening of assessment which was provided by the AO. Assessee has also raised objections against the said reopening of the assessment which was disposed ... Supreme Court of India and the Hon’ble High Courts in which the Hon’ble Courts has held that reopening of assessment based on the opinion and information wherein the AO has not investigated / enquired the matter independently, then the Department is not entitled to reopen the assessment. In support

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Visisth Chay Vyapar Ltd

Inter alia it was noticed by this Court that the order of reassessment dated 27th March 2002 did not state the reasons for reopening the assessment to be the share loss but proceeded to disallow share loss in the sum of Rs.3,72,75,000. 13. However ... that the reopening of the assessment was illegal and without jurisdiction. Inter alia it was held that in the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment there was no allegation that “there was any omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all facts

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Vishsht Chay Vyapar Ltd

Inter alia it was noticed by this Court that the order of reassessment dated 27th March 2002 did not state the reasons for reopening the assessment to be the share loss but proceeded to disallow share loss in the sum of Rs.3,72,75,000. 13. However ... that the reopening of the assessment was illegal and without jurisdiction. Inter alia it was held that in the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment there was no allegation that “there was any omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all facts

Commissioner of Income Tax - IV vs. Insecticides (India) Ltd

The appeals are dismissed

this fact was again brought to the notice of Ld AO, vide appellant’s letter dated 28.08.2007, while filing the objections to the reopening the assessment for the assessment year under consideration. On a perusal of the said letter it is seen that not only the issue was examined ... provisions of section 147 of the IT Act, 1961. Therefore, 2013:DHC:2624-DB ITA 608-609/2012 Page 5 of 9 the reopening of assessment is based merely on change of opinion, which I am afraid, is not sustainable in law. Therefore, in the light of the judgment relied

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Uberoi Sons Machines Ltd

defendant was @ `.75,000/- per month from the date of filing of suit to the date of vacation, with costs. 3. The AO reopened the assessment for assessment years 1992-93 to 1998-99 alleging that the assessee knew that higher amount (than the actual rent) was payable as rent ... been denied….. ……………….. …………………. 9.2 Even the learned Commissioner (A) has not directly address himself to this issue. It has been held that the AO reopened the assessment to bring to account the ALV that would have been seen to be the rental income for the particular year/years and that

Rolls-Royce Plc vs. Director of Income Tax Circle 2(1) Intenational Taxation

press all these questions at the time of hearing. The learned counsel for the assessee did not argue the validity of reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income-Tax Act. Even on additional question framed vide orders dated 7th July, 2010, no arguments were raised. Accordingly, questions

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. The Simbhaoli Sugar Mills Ltd

The appeals are dismissed

assessee had made complete disclosure of the particulars before the AO in the proceedings of assessment under Section 143(3). 7. Reopening of assessment after four years was apparently not permissible. There is a catena of judgments with regard to the proposition of law that assessment cannot be reopened under

Central Warehousing Corporaiton vs. ACIT

The appeals stand disposed of in the aforesaid

time i.e 10th September, 1999 the Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 147 read with section 148 of the Act thereby seeking to reopen the assessment. The reasons for reopening were furnished to the assessee on 14th January, 1999. These reasons disclosed that the assessment was reopened in view ... distinct line of business and denial of exemption u/s 10 (29) of the Act. The appellant submitted that the Assessing Officer erred in reopening the assessment under Section 147 of the Act because reassessment was possible just on 2011:DHC:229-DB Assessing Officer to determine the income was already

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Xerox Modicorp Limited

Appeals are dismissed

than proceeded to examine whether there was any material in possession of the AO which constituted information justifying for reopening the assessment. He observed that provisions of Section 80-I were analogous to provision of Section 32A. For the assessment year 1994-95, the Ld. CIT (A) held that items ... original assessment u/s 143 (3) for all these assessment years. The fact that the order of CIT (A) constituted information justifying the reopening of assessment u/s 147 (b) of the IT Act was supported by the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Kumar Engineers