← All Phrases

“beyond four years”

ReassessmentSection 147Section 147536 judgments

The decision most relied on for beyond four years is ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das (103 ITR 437), cited in 721 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on beyond four years

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.

CIT v. Foramer France
264 ITR 566 · 2003 · Supreme Court
253
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year are invalid unless the assessee failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. Without such failure, the notice issued under Section 148 is time-barred and without jurisdiction.

Ganga Saran and Sons P. Ltd. v. ITO
130 ITR 1 · 1981 · Supreme Court
234
citing judgments

A mere charge of bogus expenses, without a specific finding that the assessee failed to disclose material facts, is insufficient to justify reassessment beyond four years under the first proviso to Section 147. Courts can examine the materiality and relevance of facts forming the 'reason to believe' for initiating reassessment, ensuring it is based on reasonable grounds.

CIT v. PVS Beedies Pvt. Ltd.
237 ITR 13 · 1999 · Supreme Court
120
citing judgments

An audit objection that points out a factual error or omission overlooked by the Assessing Officer during the original assessment constitutes tangible material or information justifying the reopening of assessment under Section 147. This principle applies even for reopening beyond four years and is not considered a mere change of opinion.

5. PCIT v. Paramount Communication (P.) Ltd. Delhi High Court
392 ITR 444 · 2017 · High Court
111
citing judgments

For valid initiation of reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer must possess tangible material and apply independent mind to form a 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment. Reassessment cannot be based on mere borrowed satisfaction or unverified information without proper scrutiny.

Idea Cellular Ltd. v. Dy. CIT
301 ITR 407 · 2008 · High Court
107
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer is considered to have applied their mind and formed an opinion on an issue if the assessee fully disclosed all material facts and responded to queries during the original assessment, even without explicit discussion in the assessment order. Reopening an assessment beyond four years on such an issue without new tangible material constitutes a mere change of opinion and is impermissible under Section 147.

PCIT v. NC Cables Ltd.
391 ITR 11 · 2017 · High Court
104
citing judgments

Approval for reassessment under Section 151 requires the approving authority to apply its mind and form an opinion, not merely endorse it mechanically. Additions under Section 68 cannot be made based on suspicion alone and require conclusive evidence.

Judgments citing beyond four years

Income Tax Officer-1(2), Indore vs. Divine Infracreation and Trading Private Limited, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 272/IND/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 68Section 68(1)

that subsequently, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 25-2-2003, which was beyond four years from the end of the assessment year, that there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose any material facts and that the reopening ... pointed out that if the original assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act, then such assessment could not be reopened beyond four years unless and until there was a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose any material fact. The Tribunal proceeded to take note

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bareilly vs. Wave Distilleries and Breweries Limited, Bareilly

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed

ITA 153/LKW/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: S/Shri Salil Kapoor, Vibhu Jain and Sumit Lalchandani, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Smt. Richa Rastogi, CIT (DR)
Section 115JSection 148

assessee to fully disclose all material facts and it was only a question of drawing an inference from these facts, reopening of assessment beyond four years period is invalid. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that the Revenue, in cases falling under the aforesaid proviso, must prove that the assessee

ACIT-19(3), Mumbai vs. Ramchand Thakurdas Jhamtani, Thane

Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the Revenue in the departmental appeal in relation to the relief granted by the CIT(A) on merits are dismissed as having been rendered infructuous

ITA 3552/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)Section 250

notice is issued. Section 149 of the old regime primarily provided two time limits: (i) four years for all situations and (ii) beyond four years and within six years if the income chargeable to tax which escaped assessment amounted to Rupees one lakh or more. After 1 April

Aptivaa Middle East Fze, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commission of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(2), International Taxation, Mumbai

In the result of the file by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 2791/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)Section 149(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 6(3)(ii)

notice is issued. Section 149 of the old regime primarily provided two time limits: (i) four years for all situations and (ii) beyond four years and within six years if the income chargeable to tax which escaped assessment amounted to Rupees one lakh or more. After 1 April

Aptivaa Middle East Fze, Dubai, United Arab Emirates vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(2), International Taxation, Mumbai, Maharastra

In the result of the file by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 2357/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)Section 149(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 6(3)(ii)

notice is issued. Section 149 of the old regime primarily provided two time limits: (i) four years for all situations and (ii) beyond four years and within six years if the income chargeable to tax which escaped assessment amounted to Rupees one lakh or more. After 1 April

Aptivaa Middle East Fze, Dubai, United Arab Emirates vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(2), International Taxation, Mumbai, Maharastra

In the result of the file by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 2355/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)Section 149(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 6(3)(ii)

notice is issued. Section 149 of the old regime primarily provided two time limits: (i) four years for all situations and (ii) beyond four years and within six years if the income chargeable to tax which escaped assessment amounted to Rupees one lakh or more. After 1 April

Jatin Dilipbhai Jani, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 892/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble

For Appellant: Revenue by Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT-DR and Shri ashokkumar Suthar, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

no.1, raised by the assessee, the contention of the ld.counsel for the assessee was that the reassessment proceedings were initiated on the assessee beyond four years and original scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Act had been framed on the assessee; that therefore, the condition mandatory for assuming

Jatin Dilipbhai Jani, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 891/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble

For Appellant: Revenue by Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT-DR and Shri ashokkumar Suthar, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

no.1, raised by the assessee, the contention of the ld.counsel for the assessee was that the reassessment proceedings were initiated on the assessee beyond four years and original scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Act had been framed on the assessee; that therefore, the condition mandatory for assuming

DCIT CC 4 2 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Red Chillies Entertainments Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 5831/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 40

order passed U/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 no addition made on this issue. Accordingly, he submitted that reopening notice issued beyond four years without any tangible material is nothing but change of opinion, which is not permissible. Reliance in this regard was placed by him on the decision

Ratna Infrastructure Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-3(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 132/HYD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2012-13 Ratna Infrastructure Projects Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward –3(3), Private Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aadcr5836P. (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mohd. Afzal, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri B. Balakrishna, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.02.2025

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Balakrishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40A(3)

Admittedly, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 21.03.2019, which is beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Once the original assessment is completed u/s 143(3) of the Act, and the assessment is reopened after four years

Nishchint Bagga, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 23(1), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 6261/DEL/2017[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Neelam Jain, 374, Veer Apartment, Ward-36(1), Sector-103, Rohini, New Delhi Delhi Pan: Ajppj0908E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Pranshu Singhal, Ca Department By Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr

Section 13ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 29A

relation to which such notice has been issued is more than four years prior to the date of the reopening, i.e., it is beyond four years from the expiry of the assessment year in question and is clearly therefore, time barred in terms of the first proviso to section ... involved was that for the purpose of section 151(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 since the reopening of the assessment was beyond four years, it had to have the prior approval of the Commissioner of Income-tax, and there was no such approval in the present case

The DCIT (Int.Taxa.), Vadodara vs. Shri Ajoy Kanaiyalal Khandheria, Vadodara

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

ITA 451/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad10 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.451/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ranjitsinh Narsinh Vaghela The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 3337, Nr. Palaiya Mahakali Ward-3 V/S. Mandir Gandhinagar Pethapur, Gandhinagar Gandhinagar – 382 610 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Afepv 3269 D (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hardik Vora, Advocate Revenue By : Shri R.N. Dsouza, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/01/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 19/01/2024, For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13, Which Upheld The Order Of The Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”] Dated 30/12/2019, Passed Under Section 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"]. Ranjitsinh Narsinh Vaghela Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT-DR
Section 10(37)Section 144Section 147Section 148

assessment is not on the basis of reasons of reopening. The AR of the assessee also contended that the reassessment proceedings initiated beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year are time-barred and, therefore, invalid. 6. The Departmental Representative (DR) submitted that the assessee ... from the compensation-related inquiry. The failure of the assessee to file a return and disclose material facts justified the initiation of proceedings beyond four years. 7.1. Accordingly, both Ground Nos. 1 and 2 of appeal challenging the validity of the reassessment proceedings are dismissed. Ranjitsinh Narsinh Vaghela

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation vs. Allscripts (India) Private Limited, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1373/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2014-15 Asstt.Cit (International Allscripts (India) Pvt. Ltd. Taxation),Vadodara. Vs 10Th & 11Th Floor, Atlantis Heights Dr. Vikram Sarabhai Road Vadodara. Pan : Aaccm 2641 J (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri Rajpat Soni, Ar : Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr.Dr. Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/01/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/02/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 201(3)Section 250

specifies the time limit in respect of TDS for residents only. The CIT(A) observed that the order dated 25.03.2019 is beyond four years in light of Hon'ble Delhi High Court decision in case of NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation (Supra). The decision of Jurisdictional High Court referred

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Ajmer vs. Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the C

ITA 1285/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalassistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Ajmer, C. R. Building – 305 001. ..... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Mr. Shailesh Mantri, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Arvind Kumar, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 254Section 43B

words ''reason to believe'' occurring in section 147 does not make a distinction in respect of reopening done within four years or beyond four years. [Para 11] ■ The provisos contained in section 147 impose conditions when reopening is done beyond four years and matters connected thereof. Thus, the common issue

Pragathi Polyplast India Pvt Ltd, Medak vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-16(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1192/HYD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1192/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14) Pragathi Polyplast India Vs. Income Tax Officer Pvt. Ltd. Ward-16(1) Medak Hyderabad [Pan :Aabcp8115D] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srikanth Reddy Y, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/01/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 04/02/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.09.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)], Chennai, Pertaining To A.Y.2013-14. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing Plastic Drums & Barrels Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y.2013-14 On 31.10.2013, Admitting Total Income Of Rs.11,48,920/-. The Return Of Income Was Processed By Cpc U/S 143(1) Of Income

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Anil KumarFor Respondent: Shri Srikanth Reddy Y, DR
Section 143(1)Section 154

Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on a different ground that the application filed by the assessee u/s 154 is beyond four years from the end of 5 Pragathi Polyplast India Pvt.Ltd. the relevant assessment year and therefore, not maintainable and further, the assessee should have rectified

Tijaria Polypipes Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT Cirlce 4, Jaipur

ITA 616/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jan 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

passed deserves to be held void-ab-inito. Other main legal issue raised by the Id. AR is that the reopening was done beyond four years in the instant case wherein already assessment uis 143(3) was completed and accordingly in view of proviso to section ... failure on the part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment as the case was reopened beyond four years is concerned, it is seen that appellant is having accommodation entry transactions with these two parties and same was not disclosed. It is clear

Income Tax Officer, Chennai vs. Macmillan Education India Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2036/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 2036/Chny/2024 & Co No.: 66/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Income Tax Officer, Macmillan Education India Corporate Ward -4(1), V. Private Limited, Chennai – 600 034. No.21, Patullos Road, Chennai – 600 002. [Pan:Aafcm-5564-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Respondent/Cross Objector) Assessee By : Mr. S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate : Ms. R. Anita, Addl.Cit Department By सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22.11.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Mr. S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate
Section 143(2)Section 147

issue, and no adverse view was taken at that point. Thus, there is change of opinion in the present situation and reopening beyond four years is barred by law. There is no discussion on merits by the Ld. CIT(A). Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the revenue ... Therefore, the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer which has been recommended by the Addl.CIT for approval by the ld.PCIT beyond four years is not sustainable in the eyes of law, since there is no fresh material available on record to state that there is a failure on the part

Mack Star Marketing Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 2(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4994/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: Mr. Yash VarmaniFor Respondent: Mr. R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 144BSection 147

satisfied: • First, the assessment must have been completed under Section 143(3) of the Act. • Second, the reopening is made for assessment year beyond four years from the end of relevant assessment year. 5.2 In the present case, the scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act was completed ... reopening has been made beyond the four years from the end of the relevant assessment year and in the case of beyond four years, the condition of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all material facts fully and truly necessary for the assessment is to be satisfied

M/S Modinagar Rolls Ltd., Modinagar vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

Appeal is allowed

ITA 3455/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Modinagar Rolls Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Major Asha Ram, Tyagi Circle-1, Road, Modinagar Ghaziabad Pan :Aabcm0137C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. Sh. Rajkumar, Adv. Department By Sh. Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred on facts and law in sustaining the reassessment proceedings U/S 147 initiated second time beyond four years. She has further failed to appreciate the Jurisdictional High Court's latest view and has bypassed the law on the subject very discreetly. 2. That

Ranjitsinh Narsinh Vaghela, Gandhinagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Gandhinagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for

ITA 451/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.451/Ahd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ranjitsinh Narsinh Vaghela 3337, Nr. Palaiya Mahakali Mandir Pethapur, Gandhinagar Gandhinagar – 382 610 बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer Ward-3 Gandhinagar स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Afepv 3269 D (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hardik Vora, Advocate Revenue By : Shri R.N. Dsouza, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 15/01/2025 आदेश/Order Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 19/01/2024, For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13, Which Upheld The Order Of The Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao"] Dated 30/12/2019, Passed Under Section 144 R.W.S.147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"].

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT-DR
Section 10(37)Section 144Section 147Section 148

assessment is not on the basis of reasons of reopening. The AR of the assessee also contended that the reassessment proceedings initiated beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year are time-barred and, therefore, invalid. 6. The Departmental Representative (DR) submitted that the assessee ... from the compensation-related inquiry. The failure of the assessee to file a return and disclose material facts justified the initiation of proceedings beyond four years. 7. 1. Accordingly, both Ground Nos.1 and 2 of appeal challenging the validity of the reassessment proceedings are dismissed. On the Grounds relating