“reopening of assessment”

Santosh Kumar Ramlaxman Yadav, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 42(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 3. The Ld.AR submitted that, assessee also challenged the validity of reopening of assessment under the new provisions of Section 148 which was also not considered by Ld.CIT(A). Assessee has filed following affidavit to demonstrate that delay

Hemlata Mahendra Chavda, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 19(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed on legal grounds

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

bouquet of grounds, principally challenged the very assumption of 2 Hemlata Mahendra Chavda jurisdiction under section 148 of the Act, contending that the reopening of assessment is vitiated at its very inception on account of lack of valid sanction from the competent specified authority as mandated under section

Jasaram Kesramji Rathod, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 28(1)(1), Navi Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee‟s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2013-14 Jasaram K. Rathod, Income Tax Officer, Shop No.1, Plot No.391, Ward-28(1)(1), Saidham Building, Vs. It Office, Sector 19, Opp: Jimmy Tower, Vashi Railway Station Building, Kopar Khairne, Navi Mumbai-400703. Navi Mumbai-400709. Pan : Aacpc3348K (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Pritam Kulapkar, Ld. Ar For Revenue : Shri A.M.K. Mahadevan, Ld. Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-12-2025 O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 23-07-2025 Impugned Herein Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (In Short „Nfac‟)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (In Short „Ld. Commissioner‟) U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (In Short „The Act‟) For The Ay. 2013-14. 2. In The Instant Case, The Assessee Had Declared His Total Income Of Rs. 16,97,210/-By Filing His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On Dt. 01-11-2013, Which Was Subsequently Reopened For Re-Assessment U/S. 147 Of The Act By Issuing Notice Dt. 30-03-2021 U/S. 148 Of The Act, Mainly On The Reason That The Assessee Though Made Cash Payment Of Rs. 22,50,000/-For Purchase Of Land With Shri Mahesh M. Munde & 11 Others, But Has Not Offered The Same For Taxation For The Ay. 2013-14. 2 3. The Assessee In Response Filed His Return Of Income On 05-01-2022, Declaring Total Income At Rs. 16,97,210/-As Declared Originally. The Said Return Filed By The Assessee Was Declared/Considered As Belated And/Or Filed After The Stipulated Time Given In The Notice Dt. 30-03-2021 U/S. 148 Of The Act I.E., Within Thirty Days And, Therefore, The Same Was Treated As „Nonest’ & Accordingly The Case Of The Assessee Was Finalized U/S. 144 Of The Act Making The Addition Of The Aforesaid Amount Of Rs. 22,50,000/- By Passing The Assessment Order Dt. 29-03-2022 U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act.

148A(d) or 148 of the Act, has ever been passed/issued by the AO. Further escaped income, which was taken into consideration for reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act, was Rs.22,50,000/- only, which was less than Rs. 50 lakhsand the sanction for issuing the notice

Shri Vipul Bansal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 7(1)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Faceless Appeal Centre – New Delhi (‘CITA') erred in upholding the action of learned Income-tax Officer – Ward 7(1)(2), Mumbai (‘AO') in reopening the assessment under section 147 without satisfying the requisite condition of possessing reasons to believe for such reopening. The appellant prays that your honours declare ... facts and circumstances of the case and position in law, the learned CITA erred in upholding the action of learned AO in reopening of assessment u/s.147 notwithstanding that requisite conditions for reopening of assessment beyond 4 assessment years were not satisfied in the current case; 3. On facts and circumstances

Rekha Kishore Shah (Legal Heir of Kishor Dhirajlal Shah ), Mumbai vs. ACIT-42(1)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

appeal petition is submitted on the following grounds which it is prayed may be considered independently and without prejudice to one another- 1. Reopening of assessment u/s 147 is bad-in-law. 1.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred ... gross violation of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd., the reopening of assessment is bad in law and needs to be quashed. 1.2. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and circumstances of the case