“reassessment proceedings”

ReassessmentSections 147-151Sections 147-1518,150 judgments

The decision most relied on for reassessment proceedings is CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561), cited in 1,673 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on reassessment proceedings

CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.

320 ITR 561 · 2010 · Supreme Court

1,673

citing judgments

An Assessing Officer cannot initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act based on a mere change of opinion. Reassessment is permissible only when there is fresh tangible material leading to the belief of income escapement, not merely a review of existing facts.

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.

ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das

103 ITR 437 · 1976 · Supreme Court

721

citing judgments

For reassessment proceedings, the 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment must be based on some material and not mere suspicion, establishing a live link between the information and the belief. Furthermore, for reassessment beyond four years, there must be a specific finding of the assessee's failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts.

Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar

268 ITR 332 · 2004 · High Court

695

citing judgments

The validity of reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147, by issuing a notice under Section 148, must be judged solely on the reasons originally recorded by the Assessing Officer. These recorded reasons cannot be supplemented, improved upon, or modified at any later stage.

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.

Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT

336 ITR 136 · 2011 · High Court

398

citing judgments

In reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148, the Assessing Officer can assess other income not specified in the original notice if the initial ground for reopening assessment is found to be valid. However, if the income for which the assessment was initially reopened is found not to have escaped assessment, the Assessing Officer cannot proceed to assess any other income.

Judgments citing reassessment proceedings

ACIT-6(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Apollo Design Apparel Parks Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4040/MUM/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2008-09 Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, M/S. Apollo Design Apparel Circle-6(1)(1),Mumbai Parks Limited 504, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 382,N.M.Joshi Marg, M K Road, Mumbai-400020. Chincpokli, Mumbai-400011 Pan No. Aahca 0613 R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle HariyaFor Respondent: DR. K. R. Subhash , Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 148Section 68

response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. Thereafter, objections to reopening filed by the assessee were disposed off. During the course of reassessment proceedings, the AO rejected the contention of the assessee regarding justification of nature and source of share premium. It was submitted on behalf of the assessee

Maria Estibeiro, Panaji vs. DCIT, Circle - 1(1), Panaji

The appeal stands ALLOWED

ITA 34/PAN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji24 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Year : 2012-13 Maria Estibeiro L/H Of Jacintodas Estibeiro 781, St. Marys Colony, Miramar, Goa. Pan:Aabpe2798N . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr D E Robinson [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Vimalraj Periyagounden [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 25/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24/04/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; By This Appeal Captioned Appellant Impugns Din & Order No. 1060336601(1) Dt. 31/01/2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Act For Assessment Year 2012- 13 [‘Ay’].

For Appellant: Mr D E Robinson [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Vimalraj Periyagounden [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)

eyes of law, therefore any assessment proceedings initiated in the name of such deceased individual will be invalid. Initiation of any assessment or reassessment proceedings on a non-existing individual person is a jurisdictional defect and is fatal, which therefore vitiates all proceedings and consequential order (if any) passed. ITAT

Navdeep Educational Trust, Kollam vs. ACIT, Circle, Kollam

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

ITA 324/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17 Navdeep Educational Trust 38/109, Navdeep Mundakkal East 691001 Acit Vs. Kollam Circle Kerala Kollam Pan No : Aabtn0952H Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Surendranath Rao, A.R. Respondent By : Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 29.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.04.2025 O R D E R Per Keshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A)/ Nfac Dated 26.02.2024 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1061508122(1) For The Ay 2016-17 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Navdeep Educational Trust, Kollam Page 2 Of 6

For Appellant: Shri Surendranath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

credit in the account of managing trustee Mr. Navdeep Educational Trust, Kollam Page 4 of 6 Cletus Austin vide order dated 29.12.2018. However, the reassessment proceedings were subsequently commenced against trustee Mr. Cletus Austin on 29.1.2020. Therefore, at the time of completion of the assessment in the hands of assessee ... Cletus Austin, Managing Trustee as on that date. Protective addition was made in the assessment order of the assessee dated 29.12.2018 whereas reassessment proceedings in the hands of the Managing Trustee Mr. Cletus Austin commenced only on 29.1.2020 and thus, on the date of protective addition there was no substantive

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4, Jaipur vs. Vimal Parwal, Jaipur

In the result , the appeal for the Assessment Year 2016-17 filed by the Revenue and the Cross-Objection filed by the assessee for the same assessment year are also dismissed

ITA 1231/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, C.A. &For Respondent: Mrs Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 148Section 153CSection 250

consequently leading to reopening of the assessment under Section 147 and issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. The AO, during the reassessment proceedings, made additions to the income of the assessee, alleging cash loans amounting to Rs. 4,30,00,000 and unaccounted interest income amounting ... reassessment order before the CIT(A). The CIT(A), by detailed order, upheld the preliminary legal objection raised by the assessee against initiation of reassessment proceedings under CO No. 16 & 18/JPR/2024 Vimal Parwal, Jaipur Sections 147/148. The CIT(A), placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4, Jaipur vs. Vimal Parwal, Jaipur

In the result , the appeal for the Assessment Year 2016-17 filed by the Revenue and the Cross-Objection filed by the assessee for the same assessment year are also dismissed

ITA 1230/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, C.A. &For Respondent: Mrs Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 148Section 153CSection 250

Income Tax Officer Ward 3, Satara, Income Tax Office Satara vs. Nandkumar Dattatray Khot, Dahiwadi Man

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

ITA 1562/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. /Ita No.1562/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Income Tax Officer, V Nandkumar Dattatray Khot, Ward-3, Satara S Shri Agencies Dahiwadi, Dahiwadi, Man Satara. Maharashtra – 415508. Pan: Aatpk8947P Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee Cross Objection No.11/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Nandkumar Dattatray Khot, V The Income Tax Officer, Shri Agencies Dahiwadi, S Ward-3, Satara. Dahiwadi, Man Satara. Maharashtra – 415508. Pan:Aatpk8947P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Kulkarni - Ar Shri Vidya Ratna Kishor – (Dr)(Virtual) Revenue By Date Of Hearing 25/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/04/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) (Nfac) Under Section 250 Of

Section 132Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151ASection 250

Ground in Cross Objection : “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, The Learned Assessing Officer (Ld.AO) erred in initiating the reassessment proceedings for AY 2015-16 vide notice under section 148A(b) dated 24/05/2022, which is beyond the time limit prescribed under the Income ... provisions of section 149. Therefore, the present reassessment proceedings initiated beyond the prescribed period of limitation are bad in law and void ab initio.” Written submission of ld.AR : 2. “A search action under Section 132 was conducted in the case of Shri Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Co-operative Credit

DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Kolkata vs. Lagan Engineering Company Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2165/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

I.T.A. No. 2165/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Lagan Engineering Company Limited any impounded documents/ paper with its identity mark either from initiation from the reassessment proceedings or for the purpose of making addition of Rs. 30 Lakhs to the total income, rather the AO relied on the third party statement

Mcleod Russel India Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT, Kolkata - 2, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1136/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1136/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016) Mcleod Russel India Limited, Vs Pr.Cit, Kolkata-2 Four Mangoe Lane, Surendra Mohan Ghosh Sarani, Kolkata-700001 Pan No. :Aaace 6918 J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri N.S.Saini, Ar & Ms. Priyanka Salarpuria, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.N.Barnwal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.03.2024, Passed By The Ld. Pr.Cit, Kolkata-2, U/S.263 Of The Act For The Assessment Year 2015-2016 On The Following Grounds :- 1. On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Pr. Cit Has Erred In Passing The Order U/S 263 By Invoking Of Section 263 Of The Act, Although The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 147 R.W.S. 143(3) Of The I. T. Act, 1961 Was Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue. 2. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Reassessment Order For A.Y. 2015-16 Which Is Sought To Be Revised By The Ld. Pcit U/S 263 Had Neither Considered The Issue Of Eligibility For Deduction U/S 801E Of The 1.T. Act In The Reassessment Proceedings Nor The Reopening Of The Assessment Made On That Ground. Therefore, The Issue Does Not Arise Out Of The Order Passed U/S 147 Of The 1.T. Act, 1961. 3. For That On The Facts Of The Case & Law, The Issue Of Notice U/S 263 Of The Act On The Ground That The Assessee Company

For Appellant: Shri N.S.Saini, AR & Ms. PriyankaFor Respondent: Shri P.N.Barnwal, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 244ASection 263Section 263(1)Section 801ESection 80I

PCIT u/s 263 had neither considered the issue of eligibility for deduction u/s 801E of the 1.T. Act in the reassessment proceedings nor the reopening of the assessment made on that ground. Therefore, the issue does not arise out of the order passed ... culminated u/s.143(3)/147 of the Act vide order dated 15.03.2022 nor such issues ever came to the notice of the AO during the reassessment proceedings. Therefore, the Pr.CIT has wrongly revised the order passed u/s.143(3)/147 of the Act dated 15.03.2022 as the said order is neither erroneous

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Uttamchand Rajmal Jain, Mumbai

In the result the cross objection filed by the assessee stands allowed in terms of grounds 2, 5 and 7 and the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4714/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69A

therefore quash the notices dated 30/06/2021 and 30/07/2022 to be bad in law and void ab initio. 10. As consequence the entire reassessment proceedings becomes bad in law. Since the quashed the reassessment notices and consequential assessment the challenge proceeding are quashed by the revenue on merits becomes infractous

Bhagirath Pakharia, Jhansi vs. Ward 2 (3)(1), Jhansi

Appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 566/AGR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra23 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Section 147Section 148Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)Section 69A

2 आदेश / ORDER Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeals by assessee have common issues. First, we take up

Shree Balaji Lumbers Private Limited, Gandhidham vs. ACIT Circle, Gandhidham

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 306/RJT/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 Apr 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini& Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: ShriChetan Agarwal, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68

Further, the reopening cannot be made in respect of advance received of Rs.10 lakhs, which is recorded in the books of accounts. Therefore, reassessment proceedings initiated by the assessing officer is itself bad in law, and hence, the reassessment proceedings may be quashed. On merits, learned Counsel for the assessee ... transactions. Therefore, no addition should be made in the hands of the assessee. 10.On the other hand, the ld.DR for the Revenue, submitted that reassessment proceedings initiated on the assessee is valid, and it is as per the provisions of the Act. On merits, the Ld. DR for the Revenue

Anish Kumar Jaiswal, Dewas vs. Income Tax Officer, Dewas

ITA 686/IND/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253

fact that the "Impugned Assessment Order” is u/s 144 of the Act but the notice u/s 148 of the Act which triggered the Reassessment proceeding in the instant case was indeed illegal, wrong, without jurisdiction and the authority of law. The Ld. AR invited our attention to page

Dipanshu Gupta, Howwrah vs. ITO, Ward - 37(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2449/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 250

case. 2.) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act by the AO. 3.) (a) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred ... case. 2.) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act by the AO. 3.) (a) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred

Dipanshu Gupta, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward - 37(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2448/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 250

Moorthy, Salem vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Salem

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 490/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Mr.T.S.Lakshmi VenkatramanFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

bring to tax", any other income, which may attract assessment, though, it is brought to his notice, subsequently, albeit, in the course of the reassessment proceedings. 21.1 To put it plainly, the purported income discovered subsequently during the course of reassessment proceedings, can be brought to tax, only ... appearing in the main part of Section 147 in relation to the right of the Revenue to assess taxable income discovered during reassessment proceedings. In my view, Explanation its 3, clearly, expounds that the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped

Minish Rameshbhai Vyas, Mumbai vs. Asst. CIT 32 (2), Mumbai

ITA 4262/MUM/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Mona SolankiFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Meshram

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69

facts are in brief are that the Assessee filed return of income for the Assessment Year 2012-2013 on 29/02/2012 declaring ‘Nil’ income. Subsequently, reassessment proceedings were initiated in the case of the Assessee under Section 147 of the Act by issuance of notice, dated 30/03/2018, under Section

M/S Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Incomet Tax. Circle- Ltu -2, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 1678/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri C NareshFor Respondent: ShriKrishna Kumar SR. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 90

submissions made during the original scrutiny assessment—amounts to an impermissible "change of opinion." It is a well-settled position in law that reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated merely because the Assessing Officer intends to take a different view on the same set of facts that were already examined during ... unconstitutional. We are, therefore, of the opinion that section 147 does not postulate conferment of power upon the Assessing Officer to initiate reassessment proceeding upon his mere change of opinion. We, however, may hasten to add that if 'reason to believe' of the Assessing Officer is founded on an information

Suman Kishore, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 1434/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Sunita Bhardwaj, Vs Acit, 1/2, Taj Apartments, Circle-63(1), R.K.Puram, Sector-12, Delhi Delhi-110022. Pan-Ahfpb1928E Appellant Respondent

Section 1Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

dated 19.11.2019 requested for the further time however, looking to the time bearing limits, AO proceeded to ITA No.1435, 1434, 1433 & 1432/Del/2024 complete the reassessment proceedings on the basis of the material available on record and accordingly, total income was assessed at INR 2,56,99,540/- by making addition ... technical reasons, and later notice was issued and assessments were taken up afresh-After considering submissions of assessee and documents produced in reassessment proceedings, AO added back a sum of Rs.1,35,00,000/- - CIT(A) held against assessee an legality of reassessment notice but allowed assessee's appeal

Rajani Sahu, Gwalior vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ashok Nagar, Gwalior

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 420/AGR/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 420/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2015-16) Smt. Rajani Sahu Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ Karera, Near Kali Mai Mandir, Ashok Nagar, Gwalior. Shivpuri Road Vs. Karera, Shivpuri (Mp). "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ehpps-3090-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Deependra Mohan, Ca - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16 Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Cit(A)] On 21-05-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Act On 27-04-2023. In The Assessment Order, Ld. Ao Made Addition Of Deemed Income U/S 56(2)(Vii)(B) For Rs.48.90 Lacs. The Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed The Same Against Which The Assessee Is In Further Appeal Before Us. 2. The Ld. Ar, At The Outset, Raised A Pertinent Legal Issue Assailing Legality Of Reassessment Proceedings. It Has Been Stated That This Year Is Covered By The Decision Of Hon’Ble Delhi High Court In The Case Of Ibibo

For Appellant: Sh. Deependra Mohan, CA - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 3Section 56(2)(vii)

which the assessee is in further appeal before us. 2. The Ld. AR, at the outset, raised a pertinent legal issue assailing legality of reassessment proceedings. It has been stated that this year is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of IBIBO Group

M/S Tomar & Brothers, Etawah vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-5, Firozabad

The appeal stands allowed

ITA 348/AGR/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 348/Agr/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2007-08) M/S. Tomar & Brothers Acit, Circle 5, बनाम/ 843-A, Moti Jheel Colony, Firozabad. Vs. Etawah (Up). "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaft-7229-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Anurag Sinha, Adv. – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2007-08 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Ii, Agra [Cit(A)] Dated 31-03-2014 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act On 29-12-2011. Both Sides Made Vehement Arguments. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Appeal Is Disposed- Off As Under. The Ld. Ar Has Assailed The Validity Of Reassessment Proceedings. 2. Upon Perusal Of Assessment Order, It Could Be Seen That Assessee’S Return Of Income Was Scrutinized U/S. 143(3) On 18-11-2009. However, The Case Was Reopened Vide Notice U/S 07-01-2011 On The Allegation That The Assessee Did Not Deduct Tax At Source On Machinery Rental Payments.

For Appellant: Sh. Anurag Sinha, Adv. – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 07Section 143(3)Section 194I

heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, the appeal is disposed- off as under. The Ld. AR has assailed the validity of reassessment proceedings. 2. Upon perusal of assessment order, it could be seen that assessee’s return of income was scrutinized