← 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income -Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. Monarch Networth Capital Limited, Mumbai

ITA 961/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shrti Bandish Soparkar, AR &For Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

well as substantive grounds against the additions made under section 69A of the Act. It was specifically contended by the assessee that: ¢ The reopening of assessment was invalid as the reasons for reopening were either recorded after the issuance of notice or not communicated properly. ¢ The satisfaction ... primarily challenging the validity of the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 of the Act. The AR contended that the Assessing Officer had reopened the assessments in all three years based on a fundamentally incorrect presumption that the assessee was one of the ITA Nos.960, 961 & 962/Ahd/2024 (By Revenue

Manish Ranjan, Deputy Commissioner of Income -Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. Monarch Networth Capital Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly, the ground raised by the Revenue for A.Y. 2015–16 is dismissed

ITA 960/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shrti Bandish Soparkar, AR &For Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

well as substantive grounds against the additions made under section 69A of the Act. It was specifically contended by the assessee that: • The reopening of assessment was invalid as the reasons for reopening were either recorded after the issuance of notice or not communicated properly. • The satisfaction ... primarily challenging the validity of the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 of the Act. The AR contended that the Assessing Officer had reopened the assessments in all three years based on a fundamentally incorrect presumption that the assessee was one of the ITA Nos.960, 961 & 962/Ahd/2024 (By Revenue

Santosh Chandrahas Waghchaure, Pune vs. ITO, Ward14(5), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 325/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.325/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Santosh Chandrahas V The Income Tax Officer, Waghchaure, S Ward-14(5), Pune. House No.641, Waghchaure Building, Indreshwar Nagar, Indapur, Pune – 413106. Pan: Abqpw7868K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 250

appeal before the ld.CIT(A). Before ld.CIT(A), assessee had raised four grounds of appeal as under : “1. LD A O has mechanically reopened the assessment without coming to an independent conclusion relying on information received from various agencies which was otherwise available with him since beginning ... Indapur Urban Co-op Bank Ltd where as there is no such cash deposit in said bank. As the substantial reason believed for reopening of assessment is factually not correct hence assessment is bad in law. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case

Late Rajasekhar Chelikani, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle 3(2), Hyderabad

ITA 156/HYD/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Apr 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Us:

Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 142Section 147Section 148Section 159Section 2(22)(e)Section 251

High Court after drawing support from a host of judicial pronouncements, had observed, that the sine qua non for acquiring jurisdiction to reopen an assessment is that such notice should be issued in the name of a correct person. It was further observed that a notice issued in the name ... High Court are culled out as under: “7. The issue of a notice under section 148 of the Act is a foundation for reopening of assessment. The sine qua non for acquiring jurisdiction to reopen an assessment is that such notice should be issued in the name of the correct

Late Rajasekhar Chelikani, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Cirlce 3(2), Hyderabad

ITA 155/HYD/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Apr 2025AY 2016-2017
Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 142Section 147Section 148Section 159Section 2(22)(e)Section 251

High Court after drawing support from a host of judicial pronouncements, had observed, that the sine qua non for acquiring jurisdiction to reopen an assessment is that such notice should be issued in the name of a correct person. It was further observed that a notice issued in the name ... High Court are culled out as under: "7. The issue of a notice under Section 148 of the Act is a foundation for reopening of assessment. The sine qua non for acquiring jurisdiction to reopen an assessment is that such notice should be issued in the name of the correct

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore vs. Kamatchipuram Vellingiri Jayaraman, Coimbatore

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed, where as the Cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2777/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Ms. D.Komali Krishna, CITFor Respondent: Mr.Venkatswami, ITP &
Section 147Section 148

27/Chny/2025 21. To my mind, a careful reading of Section 147 of the Act would show that it empowers an Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment, if, he has reason to believe, that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the relevant year, ''and also bring ... course of reassessment proceedings another aspect was discovered, the reassessment order would be valid, only if, the aspect, which led to the reopening of assessment, continues to form part of the reassessed income. 23. This view, as has been correctly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner/assessee, has found

ACIT, Mumbai vs. Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas the cross-objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3705/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit, Reliance Industries Ltd., Room No. 559, 5Th Floor, 3Rd Floor Maker Chamber Iv, Aayakar Bhavan, New Marine Vs. Nariman Point, S.O. Lines, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacr 5055 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur Agarwal/Ms. MokshaFor Respondent: Ms. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 115JSection 144BSection 144CSection 147Section 801B(9)

which raised certain objections and observations. Although the Assessing Officer (AO) did not accept these objections, he nevertheless initiated remedial action by reopening the assessment under section 147 of Act, after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The AO recorded reasons to believe ... decision of the Hon‘ble Delhi High Court in the case of Kelvinator of India (supra), the Assessing Officer is barred from reopening the assessment on the same set of facts available on record without there being any new tangible material for framing opinion different from the opinion which

Comprehensive Investment and Finance Co. P. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 337/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 337/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Keerthi Narayanan, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14A

tune of Rs.4,53,39,483/- and by considering average investments, 14A disallowance works out to Rs.71,71,064/- and hence reopened the assessment by issuing statutory notices. Further, the AO, NFAC passed an order u/s.147 of the Act dated 30.03.2022 by disallowing expenditure u/s.14A of the Act by applying ... ld.CIT(A) without the participation of the assessee in the appellate proceedings. We note that the ld.AR has submitted that the reopening of assessment carried out by the AO is bad in law as it was done without jurisdiction. Further, we also find that the assessee had filed writ petition

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. M/S Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Company Ltd, Chennai

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

ITA 2836/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Mr. Ajith Kumar Jain CA & Mr. Kunal Shah, CAFor Respondent: Mr. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT &
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43(5)

Aggrieved by the AO’s order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The assessee filed detailed submission in respect of reopening of assessment proceedings and also presented detailed rebuttal for each and every case law disregarded by the :-21-: ITA. Nos:2613,2732,2820, 2835&2836/Chny/2024 ... would be grave injustice to the assessee who has already submitted the details during the assessment proceedings. The ld.AR submitted that revenue cannot reopen concluded assessments and if such exercise is permitted that would be quite contrary to the intention of the Act. The assessee should not be penalized

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. M/S Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited, Chennai

ITA 2835/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon'Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 2613 & 2732/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Company Limited, Chola Crest, C 54 & C 55, Super B-4, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Guindy Industrial Estate S.O., Chennai - 600 032. [Pan: Aaacc-1226-H] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) & The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai - 600 034. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 2835, 2836 & 2820/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai - 600 034 Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Company V. Limited, (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Chola Crest, C 54 & C 55, Super B-4, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Guindy Industrial Estate S.O., Chennai - 600 032. [Pan: Aaacc-1226-H] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Department By : Mr. Ajith Kumar Jain Ca & Mr. Kunal Shah, Ca & Ms. Aashna Dhila, Ca : Mr. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit & Ms. Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.04.2025 :-2-:

For Respondent: Mr. Ajith Kumar Jain CA & Mr. Kunal Shah, CA
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43(5)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'सी'न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH, CHENNAI श्रीएबीटीवर्की, न्यायिकसदस्यएवंश्रीएस.आर. रघुनाथा, लेखासदस्यकेसमक्ष

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited, Chennai

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

ITA 2820/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Mr. Ajith Kumar Jain CA & Mr. Kunal Shah, CAFor Respondent: Mr. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT &
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43(5)

Aggrieved by the AO’s order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The assessee filed detailed submission in respect of reopening of assessment proceedings and also presented detailed rebuttal for each and every case law disregarded by the :-21-: ITA. Nos:2613,2732,2820, 2835&2836/Chny/2024 ... would be grave injustice to the assessee who has already submitted the details during the assessment proceedings. The ld.AR submitted that revenue cannot reopen concluded assessments and if such exercise is permitted that would be quite contrary to the intention of the Act. The assessee should not be penalized

Cholamandalam Investment and Fianance Co. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai

ITA 2732/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon'Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 2613 & 2732/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Company Limited, Chola Crest, C 54 & C 55, Super B-4, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Guindy Industrial Estate S.O., Chennai - 600 032. [Pan: Aaacc-1226-H] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) & The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai - 600 034. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 2835, 2836 & 2820/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai - 600 034 Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Company V. Limited, (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Assessee By Department By Chola Crest, C 54 & C 55, Super B-4, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Guindy Industrial Estate S.O., Chennai - 600 032. [Pan: Aaacc-1226-H] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Mr. Ajith Kumar Jain Ca & Mr. Kunal Shah, Ca & Ms. Aashna Dhila, Ca : Mr. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit & Ms. Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.04.2025 :-2-:

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43(5)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'सी'न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH, CHENNAI श्रीएबीटीवर्की, न्यायिकसदस्यएवंश्रीएस.आर. रघुनाथा, लेखासदस्यकेसमक्ष

Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited, Chennai, Tamil Nadu vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax (DCIT), Chennai-1, Chennai, Tamil Nadu

ITA 2613/CHNY/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon'Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2613 & 2732/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Company Limited, Chola Crest, C 54 & C 55, Super B-4, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Guindy Industrial Estate S.O., Chennai - 600 032. [Pan: Aaacc-1226-H] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2835, 2836 & 2820/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai - 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai - 600 034. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Company V. Limited, Chola Crest, C 54 & C 55, Super B-4, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Guindy Industrial Estate S.O., Chennai - 600 032. [Pan: Aaacc-1226-H] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By : Mr. Ajith Kumar Jain Ca & Mr. Kunal Shah, Ca & Ms. Aashna Dhila, Ca Department By : Mr. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit & Ms. Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.04.2025 :-2-:

For Appellant: Mr. Ajith Kumar Jain CA & Mr. Kunal Shah, CAFor Respondent: Mr. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT &
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43(5)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'सी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH, CHENNAI श्रीएबीटीवर्की, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Madhusudan M Jani HUF, Mumbai

ITA 5780/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Ld. Sr.D.R
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

nature of accommodation entries carried out through the entity controlled by Mr. Vipul Vidhur Bhat. 4. On the aforesaid information, reasons for reopening of assessment were recorded u/s 147 of the Act and the case of the Assessee was reopened by issuing a notice dated

Income Tax Officer-42(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Madhusudan M Jani HUF, Mumbai

ITA 5772/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Ld. Sr.D.R
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

nature of accommodation entries carried out through the entity controlled by Mr. Vipul Vidhur Bhat. 4. On the aforesaid information, reasons for reopening of assessment were recorded u/s 147 of the Act and the case of the Assessee was reopened by issuing a notice dated

Mr Rahat Mohammed Riyazuddin Shaikh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5291/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, Advocate and Shri Akshay Pawar, ARFor Respondent: R. R. Makwana, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151(1)Section 50CSection 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

days without appreciating the complete facts II. Reopening is bad in law: 2. The Id CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the reopening of assessment vide notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 29/07/2022 is after expiry of three years from the end of the assessment year ... that assessee filed his return of income on 31.01.2017 reporting the total income at Rs.27,35,580/-. Case of the assessee was reopened for assessment by issuing notice u/s.148, dated 30.06.2021 under the old regime of re-assessment proceedings by recording reasons to believe whereby assessee had purchased immovable property

Kaushik D Bhagat (Patel), Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1)(4), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 241/AHD/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. BRR KUMAR (Vice President), SHRI T. R SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 144Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)Section 69A

Page No 2 1. The order passed by the lower authorities is bad in law and required to be quashed. 2. The reopening of assessment u/s.148 of the Act is bad in law and required to be quashed. 3. Ld.AO erred in law and on facts in passing assessment order

Manishkumar Ramlakhan Agrawal, Ahmedabad vs. Ward 6(1)(1) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad

In the result, impugned notice is quashed

ITA 1738/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

Ld.JAO. 6. Ld. Counsel Mr. Chetan Agarwal appearing for the assessee submitted the basic reasons recorded for reopening of assessment itself is bad in law. The A.O. has recorded that no Return of Income filed by the assessee which has resulted in reopening of assessment, whereas the assessee filed ... Thus, there is no failure on the part of the assessee in disclosing Long Term Capital Gain to the Department and the reopening of assessment beyond four years is invalid in law and the reassessment is liable to be quashed and relied upon two unreported judgements of jurisdictional High Court

Parth Dinesh Patel, Mehsana vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Patan

In the result, for the reasons set out hereinabove the orders of the

ITA 138/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Apr 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 68

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in confirming the reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act in as much as there is no escapement of income and that the notice issued ... facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in confirming the reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act in as much as there is no escapement of income and that the notice issued

Parth Dinesh Patel, Mehsana vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Patan

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

ITA 137/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.137/Ahd/2024 & 138/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Parth Dinesh Patel The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 18/19, Utkarsh Society Ward-1, V/S. Opp. Market Yard Patan – 384 265 Tal. Visnagar, Mehsana Gujarat – 384 315 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Bwrpp 7811 A (अपीलाथ&/ Appellant) ('( यथ&/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dhinal Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/04/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 01.12.2023 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Arising Out Of Reassessment Orders Framed Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], By The National Faceless Assessment Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Assessing Officer /Ao”] For The Assessment Years (Ays) 2015–16 & 2016–17, Respectively. As The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 68

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in confirming the reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act in as much as there is no escapement of income and that the notice issued ... facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in confirming the reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act ITA Nos.137 & 138/Ahd/2024 Parth Dinesh Patel Asst. Years : 2015-16 & 2016-17 in as much as there is no escapement