“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

Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Company Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is al

ITA 990/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Maharashtra State Electricity Income-Tax Officer, Ward Transmission Company Ltd., 14(2)(3), Plot No. C-19 E Block, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Prakashganga, Bandra-Kurla Karve Road, Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaecm 2936 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Ketan Ved, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Harishankar Lal, Dr : Date Of Hearing 15/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/12/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Ketan Ved, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Harishankar Lal, DR

Section 148

objections raised by the assessee against reopening disposed off the objections raised by the assessee against reopening of the assessment. In the reassessment proceeding, the Assessing of the assessment. In the reassessment proceeding, the Assessing of the assessment. In the reassessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer did not accept contention ... assessee has challenged 4.3 In Grounds of Appeal No. 1, the assessee has challenged the validity of reassessment the validity of reassessment proceedings. The main issue proceedings. The main issues on which the appellant had challenged the validity of which the appellant had challenged the validity of which the appellant

Norma Lydia Ayyash, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 24(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2758/MUM/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2022AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Norma Lydia Ayyash, Ito-24(3)(2), 15, Goundowli, Andheri East, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400069. Vs. Mumbai-400 005. Pan No. Akipa 4487 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Saurabh V. Bhatt : Revenue By Mr. Chetan M. Kacha, Dr Date Of Hearing : 26/12/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 29/12/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Saurabh V. Bhatt

Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 271F

filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer recorded reasons to believe Assessing Officer recorded reasons to believe that income income escaped assessment and commenced reassessment proceedings by way of commenced reassessment proceedings by way of commenced reassessment proceedings by way of issue of notice

Classic Share & Stock Broking Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT Cent. Cir 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the ground No

ITA 2425/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Classic Share & Stock Broking Dcit, Central Circle-7(1), Services Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 121, Radha Bhuvan, 1St Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Nagindas Master Road, Fort, Mumbai-400023. Pan No. Aaccc 5745 P Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Akash Kumar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. P. Daniel, Special Counsel : Date Of Hearing 02/12/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 29/12/2022

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Akash Kumar, AR

Section 139Section 148

Classic Share & Stock Broking Services Ltd. 3 25.03.2016 declaring total loss of (-) ₹6,51,970/ 6,51,970/-. During 25.03.2016 declaring total loss of ( reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that there reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observe reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observe was no Revenue from operations

Vipinlumar Sanklecha, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 16 (3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6612/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6612/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12) Vipinkumar Sanklecha बिधम/ Ito, Ward-16(3)(5) Room No. 447, 4Th Floor, A/303, Bhattad Tower, Opp. Vs. Kora Kendra Ground, R. M. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Bhattad Road, Borivali (W), Road, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400092. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aayps5062N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ajay Singh Revenue By: Shri Mahender Ahuja सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21/11/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-07, Mumbai Dated 02.08.2019 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Drew Our Attention To Ground Nos. 1 & 2 Which Are The Legal Issues Raised By The Assessee Against The Action Of The Ao To Have Reopened The Assessment Without Satisfying The Condition Precedents As Laid Down U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) As Well As For Not Following The Hon’Ble Supreme Court As Well The Hon’Ble Bombay High Court Decision Cited By Him. The Ground Nos. 1, 2 & 3.1 Reads As Under: - “1. The Id. Cit (A) Erred In Confirming The Reopening Of Assessment Without Appreciating That The Reopening Of The Assessment Is Bad In Law, Invalid & Liable To Be Quashed In As Much As:

For Appellant: Shri Ajay SinghFor Respondent: Shri Mahender Ahuja

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 68

said assessment order issued be declared null and void." 4 A.Y. 2011-12 Vipinkumar Sankelecha Chronological sequence of events with respect to the impugned reassessment proceedings are: Facts emanating from the sequence of events narrated above reveals as follows: a. The Ld AO never provided verbatim copy of reasons

DCIT, CC - 2(4), Mumbai vs. Mishal Nickunj Shah Shri. L/H. of Late Nickunj Gunvantrai Shah, Mumbai

Accordingly, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2312/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Garg

Section 10(38)Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

DCIT, CC - 2(4), Mumbai vs. Mishal Nickunj Shah Shri. L/H. of Late Nickunj Gunvantrai Shah, Mumbai

Accordingly, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2311/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Garg

Section 10(38)Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Om Shree International Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle-10(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1683/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleom Shree International Vs. Acit, Circle – 10(3)(1) Pvt Ltd., Room No. 212, 2Nd 702, 7Th Floor, Orion Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Business Part, Nehru Mk Road, Mumbai – Road, Santacruz (E) 400020. Mumbai – 400055. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabco4798B Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr. M Subramanian.Ar Respondent By : Mr. B. Bagchi.Dr Date Of Hearing 29.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30.11.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, (Nfac) / Cit(A) U/S 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Fallowing Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Mr. M Subramanian.ARFor Respondent: Mr. B. Bagchi.DR

Section 115JSection 131Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

assessee has raised the fallowing grounds of appeal: 1. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the reassessment proceedings initiated by issuance of notice u/s 148 of the act is invalid and bad in law. Om Shree Interantional Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

Smt. Sabapathy Kalaiselvi, Coimbatore vs. PCIT-1, Coimbatore

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

ITA 619/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri J. Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263

satisfaction by the AO in accordance with law, the AO shall pass a fresh assessment order incorporation therein the findings made during the reassessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer shall give adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee in this regard before passing the fresh assessment order.” Aggrieved, assessee came

Hitesh Jitendra Parikh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-5(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2370/MUM/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Biren Gabhawala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)Section 271(1)

more, then the time limit for issuing notice u/s 148 is 6 years from the end of the assessment year, without considering that initiating reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 2 M/s. Hitesh Jitendra Parikh and issuing notice u/s. 148 of the L.T. Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year ... short ‘the Act’) after recording the reasons. After deciding the objections raised by the assessee to the reopening the AO proceeded with the reassessment proceedings. 3. After declining the contentions raised by the assessee the AO treated the capital gain on transfer of flat by the assessee in “Patel Heights

Jivanji Metal Wares Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-6(3)(3), Mumbai

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2229/MUM/2022[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajgopal, Jm Jivanji Metal Wares Pvt. Ltd. Ito-6(3)(3) 67, Dada Mansion, 3 Rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mohammedali Road, Vs. Mumbai - 400 020 Mumbai- 400 003 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcj5775D Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri. Ajay Kumar Kesari Sr Ar Date Of Hearing: 25.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Ajay Kumar Kesari SR AR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 69C

Addition was without fulfilling the jurisdictional pre-conditions as specified in Sections 147 to 151 of the Act and hence the reassessment proceedings and assessment order passed by him consequent thereto is legal and bad in law. 2. The CIT (A) ought to have held that the AO erred

General Electric Company, Mumbai vs. Asst DIT (It) 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2001-02 is allowed and the appeal of revenue for A

ITA 82/MUM/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri M Balaganeshm/S. General Electric Company, C/O Kpmg, Lodha Excelus, Apollo Mills Compound, N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400011 Pan Aaacg5399M …Appellant. Vs. Asst. Director Of Income Tax, (International Taxation)-3(1), Room No.136, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N M Road Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400038. ….Respondent. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-3(1), Mumbai-400 038 ….Appellant. Vs. M/S. General Electric Company, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai. ….Respondent. Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Ms. Fereshte Sethna, Shri Mrunal Parekh, Shri Abhishek Tilak & Shri Ameya Pany. Revenue By : Ms. Surabi Sharma, Cit D.R. Shri Sunil Umap, Cit- D.R. Date Of Hearing : 15.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2022

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Ms. Surabi Sharma, CIT

Section 139Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 5Section 9

fulfillment of this condition is not a mere formality but it is mandatory and the failure to fulfill the condition would vitiate the entire reassessment proceedings. c) The reasons for formation of belief must have rational connection with or relevant bearing on formation of belief. Rational connection postulate that there ... submitted that the notices issued under section 148 of the Act to GEC are bad in law and without jurisdiction and hence the reassessment proceedings initiated against GEC may kindly be dropped. 5. The learned Assessing Officer without disposing of the objections raised by the assessee for the reasons recorded

DDIT (It) 3(1), Mumbai vs. General Electric Company, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2001-02 is allowed and the appeal of revenue for A

ITA 432/MUM/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2001-02

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Ms. Surabi Sharma, CIT

Section 139Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 5Section 9

Maruti Ningappa Patil, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-1 Kalyan, Mumbai

ITA 2198/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 69A

income. Thus the AO have reasoned to believe that income of more than Rs.1,00,000/- has escaped assessment and thereby initiated the reassessment proceedings under section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). On failure of the assessee to file complete details as required

Manohar Manak Alloys P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 4(2), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1159/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar SinghFor Respondent: Shri A.B. Koli

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 263(1)

Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Anderson Marine & Sons Pvt. Ltd. : 266 ITR 649 (Bom). - The subject matter of reassessment proceedings was commission income earned by the Appellant in respect of accommodation entry for supply of scrap. The issue on the basis of revisional jurisdiction under Section ... from the date of the original assessment order. In that case assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 30.03.1998. Subsequently, reassessment proceeding were initiated in respect of three issues viz., (i) the expenses claimed for share issue, (ii) bad and doubtful debts and, (iii) excess depreciation

Focal Trading Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO - 12(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 2771/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

Section 147Section 234BSection 69

Learned CIT (A) has grossly erred both in law and on facts in failing to appreciate that initiation of the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act is without satisfying the statutory preconditions as envisaged u/s 147 of the Act, and hence initiation of the reassessment proceedings itself ... Learned CIT (A) has grossly erred both in law and on facts in failing to appreciate that learned AO has initiated the reassessment proceedings without having any tangible material for the formation of reasons to believe that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment, and hence assumption of jurisdiction

M/S K.M. Khadim & Co., Kolkata vs. PCIT-1, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 278/KOL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 263

item/issue in respect of which order is revised under section 263 of the Act by the ld. PCIT is not the subject matter of reassessment proceedings. The facts before the Hon’ble Apex Court were that , the ld. PCIT had sought to revise the part of the order of assessment ... which related the lease equalization fund. The reassessment proceeding was initiated and culminated under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act in which the issue of lease equalization fund was not the subject matter and the Hon’ble Court has, therefore, held that doctrine of merger

Mohamad Idris Bros Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Company Circle - IV (3), Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 642/CHNY/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Dr. M. Razzack (FCA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR. V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 108Section 143(3)

Covid-19 Pandemic, we condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication on merits. 3. The Ld. AR assailed the validity of reassessment proceedings and also assailed the impugned additions on merits. It has been submitted that the additions have been made on mere suspicion and presumptions without carrying ... impugned additions against which the assessee is in further appeal before us. Our findings and Adjudication 5. So far as the legality of reassessment proceedings is concerned, it could be seen that the original return of income was processed u/s 143(1) and the case was reopened pursuant to receipt

Mohamad Idris Bros Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Company Circle - IV(3), Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 641/CHNY/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Dr. M. Razzack (FCA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR. V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 108Section 143(3)

Mohamad Idris Bros P.Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT- Company Circle-4(3), Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 640/CHNY/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Dr. M. Razzack (FCA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR. V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 108Section 143(3)

Nikita Nimesh Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 2352/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.2352/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Nikita Nimesh Shah बिधम/ Ito Ward 19(2)(4) 105 A Simla House, Nepean Sea Matru Mandir, Vs. Road, Malabar Hill Tardeo Road Mumbai- 400003. Mumbai-400007. स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aamps4532R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Satyaprakash Singh Revenue By: Shri Mahender Ahuja सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22/11/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Shri Mahender Ahuja

Section 143(1)Section 148

claimed to have incurred loss of Rs. 13,89,812/- from share transaction through his broker M/s Dani shares Stock Private limited. During the reassessment proceedings, the assessee pleaded to AO for summoning M/s Dani Share & Stock broker Private Limited [in short, M/s Dani Stock Broker] and examine them