← All Phrases

“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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(1), Raipur vs. Meserss Chhattisgarh Stateelectricity Board, Raipur

ITA 31/RPR/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur25 Sept 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.31/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board (Through Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited) Dangania Raipur Pan : Aabcc7876Q ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: S/shri Praveen Khandelwal & PraveenFor Respondent: Dr. Simran Bhullar, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

extent. Regarding the other additions/disallowances assailed by the assessee and revenue, the Tribunal observed that as the same did not arise out of the reassessment proceedings, i.e., the order passed by the AO u/ss. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act, dated 30.12.2008; therefore, there was no necessity to adjudicate ... vide his order dated 22.01.2009 quashed the original assessment order passed u/s 143(3), dated 29.11.2007.; and (ii). the Tribunal had quashed the reassessment proceedings for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction vide its order dated 13.09.2013. Based on its claim above, it was stated by the assessee company that

Shri Champakbhai D. Patel, Bardoli vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (It & Tp), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 15/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.15/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) M/S. Champakbhai D. Patel, Vs. The Cit(It & Tp), Mota Sardar Chowk, Bardoli, Ahmedabad Surat - 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Atlpp0997K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Shri S. M. Keshkamat, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Date Of Hearing 13/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25/09/2023

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

notice u/s 148 of the Act, the assessee filed return of income on 30.04.2021, declaring total income at Rs.18,460/-. During the course of reassessment proceedings before the assessing officer, the assessee contended regarding the source of the aforesaid cash deposits that he had received cash from two parties ... response to notice under section 148 of the Act, the assessee filed the return of income. During the reassessment proceedings, the assessee submitted bank statement, confirmation of parties and also submitted the reply of the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under section 142(1) of the Act. Therefore, assessing

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(8), Surat vs. Mahaveer Shantilal Jain, Surat

ITA 453/SRT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.453/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) The Ito, Vs. Mahaveer Shantilal Jain, Ward-2(3)(8), Prop. M/S Mukesh Diamonds, 1St Surat. Office No.401, Floor, H.No.5/1171/72/73/1090, New Dtc, Hath Falia, Haripura, Surat – 395009. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aqupj6439L Appellant By Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Date Of Hearing 08/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25/09/2023

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

notice under Section 143 (2) of the Act of 1961. The Tribunal vide impugned order upheld the cross-objection and quashed the entire reassessment proceedings on the finding that the same stood vitiated as the Assessment Officer lacked jurisdiction in absence of notice under Section

DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Steel Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3553/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.3553/मुं/2016 (िन.व. 2006-07) आअसं.3554/मुं/2016 (िन.व. 2007-08) Dcit(2)(3)(1),Mumbai , Room No.552, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Tata Steel Ltd. Bombay House, Homi Modi Street, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001. Pan:Aaact-2803-M ....."ितवादी/Respondent C.O. No.306/Mum/2017 [Arising Out Of Ita No.3553/Mum/2016 (A.Y.2006-07)] C.O. No.307/Mum/2017 [Arising Out Of Ita No.3554/Mum/2016 (A.Y.2007-08)]

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar with Ms. Jasmin AmalsadvalaFor Respondent: Shri Neehar Ranjan Pandey
Section 143(3)

excessive mining operations and profit resulting therefrom has not been disclosed in the books. During assessment proceedings, the assessee challenged the validity of reassessment proceedings. On merits the assessee furnished Auditor’s certificate to show that the value of mining of raw minerals has already been accounted in the books ... assessment year 2007-08 are identical to assessment year 2006-07, except the amounts. 10. A perusal of the assessment order shows that in reassessment proceedings addition of Rs.432,95,96,989/- has been made in the hands of assessee on account of unaccounted profits resulting from excessive mining

JCIT Circle-28(1), Delhi vs. Ajay Sharma, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1257/DEL/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG (Judicial Member), DR. B.R.R. KUMAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Sonal Wadhera, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, CIT(DR)
Section 69

that the assessee had paid Rs. 63 lakh through three cheques and Rs. 1.95 crores in cash in the reasons recorded for initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act and made addition of Rs. 1.95 crores treating the same as unexplained investment

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bilaspur vs. M/S Jagannathdas Harichandmal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd, Raigarh

In the result appeal of revenue is partly allowed in terms of our observations herein above

ITA 106/RPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur22 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.106/Rpr/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs M/S. Jagannathdas Harichandmal Income Tax (Central), Bilaspur Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Sadar Bazar, Raigarh (C.G.) Pan: Aaccj2840G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Choudhary N.C. Roy, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 14/07/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Bhopal, Dated 16.03.2022 Which In Turn Arises From The Order By Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Dated 30.12.2018 For A.Y.2012-13. The Grounds Of The Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Under: “ 1. Whether On The Fact & In The Circumstances Of The Case In Law, While Holding Assessment Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 143(3) Of Act As Invalid & Void-Ab-Initio, The Ld. Cit(A) Completely Ignored The Fact That During The Course Of Survey, The Assessee Failed To Discharge Its Burden In Establishing 'The Identity, Creditworthiness & Genuineness Of The Transactions As Required U/S 68 Of The Income Tac Act. Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Ignoring That Reassessment Proceeding Are Based On Fresh Facts/Information Rather Than Change Of Opinion. 2. Whether On The Fact & In The Circumstances Of The Case In Law, The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Ignoring That Confirmation Of Concealment Of Income/Disclosure Made In Statement Recorded During Survey U/S 133A Of Act Is An Information, Though Not Conclusive, Which May Be Used In Regular Assessment Or Reassessment Proceedings.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Choudhary N.C. Roy, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions as required u/s 68 of the Income Tac Act. Ld. CIT(A) erred in ignoring that reassessment proceeding are based on fresh facts/information rather than change of opinion. 2. Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case ... made in statement recorded during Survey u/s 133A of Act is an information, though not conclusive, which may be used in regular assessment or reassessment proceedings. 2 3. Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has over relied upon the outcomes

Darshit Developers, Valsad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Valsad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 471/SRT/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.471/Srt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Virtual Court Hearing) Darshit Developers Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, C/O Kashmiraben Shaileshbhai Valsad Room No.204/Palak Vs. Patel/ Bhagwati Bunglowes / Arcade, Near Pali Hill, Tithal Maninagar Society, Tithal Cross Road, Valsad-396001 Road, Valsad-396001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aagfd 5807 L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Rajesh Upadhyay, Ar िनधा"रती की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing 05/09/2023 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2023 आदेश / Order Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (In Short “Nfac/Ld. Cit(A)”], Dated 07.07.2023, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 19.12.2017. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1. Ld. Cit[A], Nfac, Delhi Has Erred In Law & On Facts To Upheld A.O’S Reopening U/S 147 & Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Ignoring The Fact & Law That Incorrect Information Received From Ddit[Inv.] Does Not Give Jurisdictional To The A.O For Invoking Reassessment Proceedings Us/ 147 Of The Act. 2. Ld. Nfac, Delhi Has Erred In Law & On Facts To Upheld Addition Of Partner’S Capital Of Rs.12,50,000/- [Shilpaben Shah] As Well As Another Partner’S Capital Rs.12,50,000/- [Nipaben Shah] + Total Rs.25,00,000/- Ignoring The Fact That There Was No Business Activity Of Firm In The Year Under Assessment As Well As Partner’S Capital Contribution Cannot Be Treated As Income Of The Firm Considering Facts Of Appellant’S Case.”

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

ignoring the fact and law that incorrect information received from DDIT[Inv.] does not give jurisdictional to the A.O for invoking reassessment proceedings us/ 147 of the Act. 2. Ld. NFAC, Delhi has erred in law and on facts to upheld addition of partner’s capital of Rs.12

Rakesh Mafatlal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO-19(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2107/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blerakesh Mafatlal Jain V. Income Tax Officer – 19(3)(1) C/O. M.A. Enterprises Mumbai A/4, Madhavji Building 260, S.V.P Road Opp. Alankar Cinema Mumbai – 400004 Pan: Agcpj5330L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Page No. 2 of the Assessment Order who are said to be providing accommodation entries without there being transportation of any goods. In the reassessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to prove the genuineness of the purchases made from the parties referred in the Assessment Order. 7. In response assessee

Smt. Bharti Singh, Amritsar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3, Amritsar

Appeals of the appellant are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

ITA 226/ASR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Bansal, Adv. &
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 151

Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs Atlas Cycle Industries (supra) held as under: "9. Adverting to the question referred regarding the reassessment proceedings, we are of the view that the Tribunal was right in cancelling the reassessment as both the grounds on which reassessment notice was issued

Smt. Bharti Singh, Amritsar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3, Amritsar

Appeals of the appellant are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

ITA 222/ASR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Bansal, Adv. &
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 151

Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs Atlas Cycle Industries (supra) held as under: "9. Adverting to the question referred regarding the reassessment proceedings, we are of the view that the Tribunal was right in cancelling the reassessment as both the grounds on which reassessment notice was issued

Smt. Bharti Singh, Amritsar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3, Amritsar

Appeals of the appellant are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

ITA 221/ASR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Bansal, Adv. &
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 151

Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs Atlas Cycle Industries (supra) held as under: "9. Adverting to the question referred regarding the reassessment proceedings, we are of the view that the Tribunal was right in cancelling the reassessment as both the grounds on which reassessment notice was issued

Narender Kumar, Sonipat vs. ITO, Ward-2, Sonipat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 320/DEL/2020[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Delhi21 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Suresh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Raghunath, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

enquiry on the material on record which shows reopening without applying independent mind. In view of the above defects in the compliances the resultant reassessment proceedings are required to be set aside.” 3. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record

DCIT, Central Circle- 2, Faridabad vs. Srs Real Estate Ltd., Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3677/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT DR
Section 132(1)(A)Section 139Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153(1)(b)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘B’ : NEW DELHI) SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA

M/S. Soham Estate, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-1, Thane

ITA 690/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2023AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Dr. K. ShivaramFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

accommodation entry operators, had introduced capital aggregating to INR 43.92 Crores from Assessment Year 2012-13 to 2017-18. In view of the aforesaid, reassessment proceedings were initiated for the Assessment Year 2012-13. In response to notice dated 26/11/2018, issued under Section 148 of the Act, the Appellant filed ... dispose of the 10 ITA No.691/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) objections to reopening of the assessment filed by the assessee before proceedings with the reassessment proceedings. While arriving at the said conclusion, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court had, placing reliance of the above two judgments, held as under

Pankaj P. Mehta, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-36, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 2069/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blepankaj P. Mehta V. Cit (Appeals-36) Flat No. 301, Plot No. 289 National Faceless Appeal Centre Delhi Ahinsa Sadan Co-Op Housing Society Road No. 3 Opp. Suvidha Hospital & Polyclinic Jawahar Nagar, Goregaon (W) Mumbai - 400102 Pan: Agdpm3309H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 250Section 274

availed accommodation entries from M/s. Manshi Traders who is said to be providing accommodation entries without there being transportation of any goods. In the reassessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to prove the genuineness of the purchases made from M/s. Manshi Traders. The notices issued to the assessee were returned

Meridian Jewellery Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, CC-1(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 356/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Meenaxi Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., V. Acit - Central Circle – 1(3) 228-229 Pratishtha Bhavan Majestic Shopping Centre Mumbai - 400020 Opera House, Mumbai - 400004 Pan: Aafcm0371A (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Milan& Co. V. Acit - Central Circle – 1(3) 3-M, Ambika Darshan Pratishtha Bhavan Moti Dadiya Sheri Mumbai - 400020 Surat, Gujarat – 395003 Pan: Aarfm9959R (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Meridian Jewellery Pvt. Ltd., V. Acit - Central Circle – 1(3) 316, Panchratna Pratishtha Bhavan Opera House, Mumbai - 400004 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacd9904F

Since we have already allowed the appeal of the assessee on merit, the ground raised by the assessee challenging the legality / validity of reassessment proceedings has been rendered academic and therefore we are not adjudicating the same and the same is left open.” 11. Since the issue is exactly similar

Daffodills Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Meerut vs. PCIT, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 1148/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 151Section 263Section 40Section 40A(2)(b)

regarded as an interpretational error in the view which was taken by certain Courts that the AO has to restrict the assessment or reassessment proceedings only to the issues in respect of which reasons were recorded for reopening the assessment. The corrective exercise embarked upon by Parliament in the form

Kanav Metals, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 50(1), New Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7778/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Her During The Course Of Appeal Proceedings.

Section 2(31)Section 244

from their own source to the Assessee Firm and in the absence of no plausible explanation furnished by the partners the reassessment proceedings in their hands are being initiated separately for bringing the said amount to tax’. It is brought to our notice that the said reassessment proceedings

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax C 2(1), Jabalpur vs. Shri Rakesh Jaishwal, Jabalpur

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 35/JAB/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur18 Sept 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleacit, Circle 2(1), Vs. Shrirakeshjaiswal, Annexe Building, Bunglow No. 6, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Napier Town, Jabalpur-482001, Jabalpur-482001, Madhya Pradesh. Madhya Pradesh. Pan/Gir No. : Aefpj7779E Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri.Sanjay Seth Ca & Shri.Sachin Vajpayee, Adv.Ar Revenue By : Shri.Rajesh Kumar Gupta. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.09.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1,Jabalpur Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri.Sanjay Seth CA &For Respondent: Shri.Rajesh Kumar Gupta. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 69B

facts on deleting the above addition without appreciating the fact that the assessee has submitted a manipulated balance sheet in the reassessment proceedings by introducing unsecured loan of Rs. 13371299/- (claimed to have been taken in earlier assessment year) to justify the unexplained investments including

Henrietta Maria Pereira, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir-17(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1914/MUM/2023[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2023AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.1914/मुं/2023 (िन.व. 2002-2003) Henrietta Maria Pereira, B/602, Vintage Chs Ltd, Ic Colony, Borivali (West),Mumbai – 400 103 Pan: Akupp5344E ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -17(1), Room No.117/135, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ....."ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Jitendra Singh "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Shri H.M.Bhatt सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 14/09/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/09/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra SinghFor Respondent: Shri H.M.Bhatt
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 147

assessee submitted that the assessee in appeal has raised two issues. The first issue (Ground No.2) is a legal ground challenging validity of reassessment proceedings. The second issue (Ground No.3) is challenge to addition/disallowance on merits i.e. 2 disallowance of exemption claimed u/s. 10(10C) of Income ... short ‘the Act’] r.w.r. 2BA 3. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the reassessment proceedings are bad and are liable to be quashed as no addition has been made in the reassessment order for which case of the assessee was reopened. He referred to the reasons recorded