← All Phrases

“material facts necessary for assessment”

ReassessmentSection 147Section 147564 judgments

The decision most relied on for material facts necessary for assessment is Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO (41 ITR 191), cited in 384 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on material facts necessary for assessment

Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO
41 ITR 191 · 1961 · Supreme Court
384
citing judgments

The assessee's duty is limited to disclosing all primary, material facts necessary for assessment, including entries, documents, and other evidence. It is for the Assessing Officer to draw inferences of fact and law, and the assessee is not obligated to offer such inferences.

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.

153 (Gujarat) 8 Shakti Karnawat v. ITO
296 ITR 90 · 2008 · High Court
171
citing judgments

A live link of third-party information can form the basis for reopening an assessment under Section 148, provided it contains material facts necessary for assessment. The Assessing Officer must demonstrate a "reason to believe" that income has escaped assessment, which can be satisfied by such information even if it pertains to other assessees or relates to accommodation entries.

Sound Casting (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT
250 CTR 119 · 2012 · High Court
51
citing judgments

An assessment cannot be reopened beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the assessee failed to make a full and true disclosure of all material facts necessary for assessment.

ACIT v. CEAT Ltd.
449 ITR 171 · 2022 · Supreme Court
44
citing judgments

Reopening of an assessment beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year is invalid if it is based on a mere change of opinion or borrowed satisfaction, or if the reasons recorded do not explicitly allege the assessee's failure to truly and fully disclose all material facts necessary for assessment.

CIT v. Foramer Finance
251 ITR 416 · 2001 · High Court
41
citing judgments

Reopening assessments is permissible after four years if there was an escapement of income due to the assessee's failure to disclose material facts necessary for assessment, even if the initial assessment involved a change of opinion.

Dalmia P. Ltd. v. CIT
348 ITR 469 · 2012 · High Court
41
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings are valid when there is a failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment.

R 603 Mad. (14) Well Intertrade P. Ltd vs. CIT, 308 ITR 22 (Del) (15) Sitara Diamond P. Ltd. v. DCIT
343 ITR 183 · 2012 · High Court
40
citing judgments

Reopening assessment beyond four years under Section 147 is permissible only if the assessee failed to disclose fully and truly the material facts necessary for assessment. Mere change of opinion is not a valid ground for reopening.

Judgments citing material facts necessary for assessment

Gaurav Singhal, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-17(4), New Delhi

ITA 576/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Pradip Kumar Kedia & Sh. Anubhav Sharmagaurav Singhal Vs. Ito, 149, Tarun Enclave, Ward-17(4), Pitampura, C.R.Building, New Delhi-110034 New Delhi-110002 Pan : Aohps3787D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

escaped assessment on the reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment as per provision of the section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961. In this case, escaped income is more than one lakhs and within ... show that there is live link between the information reproduced and the failure of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. Apparently the Ld. AO has merely expressed reason to suspect and not cited reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment

Vighnaharata Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1284/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Vighnaharata Trust Cit (Exemption) 1605/06 Hurrah, City Of Joy, Room No-617, 6Th Floor, Near Railway Station, Lbs Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Vs. Marg, Mulund West, Mumbai- Parel, Mumbai- 400 012 400 080 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaatv8040K Assessee By : Shri. Rajeev Khandelwal Revenue By : Shri. Achal Sharma Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.12.2022

For Appellant: Shri. Rajeev KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri. Achal Sharma CIT DR
Section 10Section 11Section 115BSection 12ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 292B

voluntary contribution. However, assessee could not furnish names and address of the donor and therefore assessee has not full and truly disclosed material facts necessary for assessment. Therefore, the case of the assessee was reopened. 6. Assessee filed letter dated 27.04.2018 requesting to treat return filed originally as return

The Pr. CIT Mumbai City-19, Mumbai vs. Shri Champaklal M. Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, the impugned notice is quashed

ITA 2253/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2022AY 2011-12
Section 143(3)Section 148

provisions of section 147 (b) of the Act, for failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment for A.Y. 2011-12. Perhaps you failed to read the running dots after the first para and before the second para. For your ... provisions of section 147(b) of the Act, for failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment for A.Y. 2011-12." 3.2 The appellant has objected to the reasons for reopening vide his letter dated 25.10.2017. He has submitted that

ITO 24(2), Mumbai vs. Kailash Chandra Gupta HUF, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2011–

ITA 2339/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh SanghviFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh
Section 10(38)Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 250

Section 147 of the IT Act, 1961 for the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment for the previous year relevant to A.Yr. 2012-13. Hence it is a fit case for initiation of proceedings ... been under-assessed due to failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. 12. It is the plea of the learned AR that the reassessment proceedings have been initiated entirely based on the satisfaction borrowed from the Investigation Wing

Income Tax Officer 24(2) (1), Mumbai vs. Kailash Chandra Gupta, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2011–

ITA 2338/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh SanghviFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh
Section 10(38)Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 250

Section 147 of the IT Act, 1961 for the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment for the previous year relevant to A.Yr. 2012-13. Hence it is a fit case for initiation of proceedings ... been under-assessed due to failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. 12. It is the plea of the learned AR that the reassessment proceedings have been initiated entirely based on the satisfaction borrowed from the Investigation Wing

DCIT, Chennai vs. B.V.Reddy Enterprises Pvt Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1914/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1914/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. B.V. Reddy Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, New No. 21/Old No. 10A, First Floor, Corporate Circle 1(2), Umayal Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 010. [Pan:Aaccn2252L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 04.11.2022 : आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai, Dated 29.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Facts Are, In Brief, That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2010-11 On 13.10.2010 Admitting Total Income Of ₹.15,50,25,060/-. The Assessing Officer Has Completed The Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Dated

For Appellant: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 14Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Assessing Officer nowhere stated that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment for that assessment year. Hence, the Assessing officer had no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment proceedings. The notice was not valid and was liable

Saravana Stores, Chennai vs. ACIT, C.C-1(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 488/CHNY/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri T.Vasudevan (Advocate)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

held that since there was no failure on the part of assessee to make return or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment, the case could not be reopened and the notice issued u/s 148 was barred by limitation. 8. Since the legal grounds urged

DCIT 13(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Pebble Bay Developers P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes, is allowed for statistical purposes, whereas the application of the assessee under rule 27 is ...

ITA 5744/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2008-09 Dy. Commissioner Of Income- M/S Pebble Bay Developers Tax-13(1)(2), Pvt. Ltd., 2Nd Floor, Room No. 218, Vs. Raheja Chambers, Linking Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Road, Main Avenue Santacruz Mumbai-400020. (West), Mumbai-400054. Pan No. Aaccg 1645 E Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Ms. Vranda Matkari, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Nishit Gandhi, Ar Date Of Hearing : 26/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/10/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Nishit Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda Matkari, DR
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 69C

petitioner had failed to disclose fully and truly all allegation that the petitioner had failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment, the Ass material facts necessary for assessment, the Assessing Officer had no essing Officer had no jurisdiction to issue the notice under section

ACIT Central Circle 2(1), Chennai vs. Cavinkare Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

Appeal stand allowed

ITA 1076/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar (C.A) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreeenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 36(1)(iii)

fact that there was omission and failure on the part of the assessee by having not fully and truly disclosed all the material facts necessary for assessment and the assessment was re-opened on the basis of fresh material and specifically recording it in the reasons for re-opening with ... unreasonable to allege that there is a failure on the part of the undersigned to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. Further in this regard, reference is drawn to the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Mohan Gupta (HUF) v CIT Decided

R.Rajagopal Tondaiman, Trichy vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Trichy

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

ITA 525/CHNY/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.525/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sri R. Rajagopal Tondaiman, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Old No. 4-D, New No. 22, Collector Income Tax, Office Road, Trichy 620 001. Central Circle 1, Trichy. [Pan:Afbpr0712E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Viswanathan, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Trichy, Dated 30.12.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Facts Are, In Brief, That The Assessee Is A Hereditary Of Raja Of Pudukottai & Stated That He Is Assessed To Tax In The Status Of Huf & Individual. The Property At Cenotaph Road, Chennai Was Given To M/S. Doshi Housing Ltd. On A Development Agreement Entered Into On 30.01.2006 Through A Power Of Attorney. The Assessing Officer Has 2

For Appellant: Shri R. Viswanathan, CAFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

Assessing Officer nowhere stated that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment for that assessment year. Hence, the Assessing officer had no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment proceedings. The notice was not valid and was liable

Ayyappa Seva Samgham Bombay, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-53, Mumbai

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

ITA 699/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2022AY 2010-11
Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

which in any way does not disclose there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly the material facts necessary for assessment. The Ld. AR relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever

Shri Amit Mangilal Jain, Mumbai vs. ACIT, - 33(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed and the appeals filed by the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3331/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 3331 & 3332/Mum/2019 (A.Ys: 2009-10 & 2010-11) Shri Amit Mangilal Jain Vs. Acit – 33(1) 2Nd Floor, Arkade House, 103, 1St Floor, Atmaram Sawnt Marg, Eastern House, Kandivali (E), Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400101. Mumbai – 400021. Pan/Gir No. : Aabpj0925G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Naresh JainFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar.DR
Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153C

Akshay Doshi u/s. 131. Confirming the initiation of reassessment proceedings, in absence of any failure on the part of appellant to disclose material facts necessary for assessment, is bad in law and consequently the reassessment order needs to be quashed. 2. Without prejudice to the above and without admitting

DCIT 15(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Premier Supplies & Services P Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1384/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – 15(2)(2) V. M/S. Premier Supplies & Services Pvt. Ltd., Office No. 47, Satya Sai Plaza Room No. 357, 3Rd Floor Sector-11, Plot No. 5 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Panvel, Navi Mumbai - 410206 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaccg2655A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Shri Nihar Ranjan Samal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Nihar Ranjan Samal
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

Director of Income Tax (Investigation), was not justified when there was no allegation of assessee's failure to disclose truly and fully material facts necessary for assessment [In favour of assessee] On the basis of the information received from another agency, there cannot be any reassessment proceedings. However, after considering

Shri.J M Vrushabendraiah, Hospet vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 299/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Narayana K.R., D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250

information at his disposal believe that income has been under-assessed by reason of failure fully and truly to disclose all material facts necessary for assessment. Such a belief, be it said, may not be based on mere suspicion; it must be founded upon information”. u. A three-Judge Bench

Dy CIT CC-2(3), Mumbai vs. Vipul Dilipbhai Shah, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as cross- objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1278/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit Central Circle-2(3), Vipul Dilipbhai Shah, Room No. 803, 8Th Floor, Prathishtha 401, Deepak Bldg. 3Rd Floor, S.V. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Vs. Road, Vile Parle-W, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400056. Pan No. Aahps 5253 J Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 12/Mum/2022 (Ita No. 1278/Mum/2021) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vipul Dilipbhai Shah, Dcit Central Circle-2(3), 401, Deepak Bldg. 3Rd Floor, S.V. Road, Room No. 803, 8Th Floor, Vile Parle-W, Vs. Prathishtha Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400056. Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aahps 5253 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Rajan Vora, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Achal Sharma, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 19/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/06/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Rajan Vora, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Achal Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148Section 271DSection 69A

income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment on account of failure of the assessee to disclose full and true material facts necessary for assessment of its income for the assessment year under consideration 6.9 Thereafter the assessee filed his objections to the reasons provided by the A vide letter dated

Dy CIT CC-2(3), Mumbai vs. Vipul Dilipbhai Shah, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as cross- objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1277/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit Central Circle-2(3), Vipul Dilipbhai Shah, Room No. 803, 8Th Floor, Prathishtha 401, Deepak Bldg. 3Rd Floor, S.V. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Vs. Road, Vile Parle-W, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400056. Pan No. Aahps 5253 J Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 12/Mum/2022 (Ita No. 1278/Mum/2021) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vipul Dilipbhai Shah, Dcit Central Circle-2(3), 401, Deepak Bldg. 3Rd Floor, S.V. Road, Room No. 803, 8Th Floor, Vile Parle-W, Vs. Prathishtha Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400056. Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aahps 5253 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Rajan Vora, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Achal Sharma, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 19/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/06/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Rajan Vora, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Achal Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148Section 271DSection 69A

income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment on account of failure of the assessee to disclose full and true material facts necessary for assessment of its income for the assessment year under consideration 6.9 Thereafter the assessee filed his objections to the reasons provided by the A vide letter dated

ACIT 4 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. Kotak Securities Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 7357/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2022AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Farrokh IraniFor Respondent: Smt. Neelam Shukla
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 73

Section 147 stipulates that there must be a failure on the part of the Assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment as a result of which income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. But, that is not to say that within a period of four

Sri. H.J. Siwani, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees are partly allowed to the extent indicated

ITA 601/BANG/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 May 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathy

For Appellant: Shri. Annamalli, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

person amounts to Rs. 45.035 lacs By reason of failure on the part of the assesseee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment, I have a reason to believe that an undisclosed income in the hands of the assessee Mr. M J Siwani for the A.Y.2005-06

Sri. M.J. Siwani, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees are partly allowed to the extent indicated

ITA 600/BANG/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 May 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathy

For Appellant: Shri. Annamalli, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

person amounts to Rs. 45.035 lacs By reason of failure on the part of the assesseee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment, I have a reason to believe that an undisclosed income in the hands of the assessee Mr. M J Siwani for the A.Y.2005-06

Hsbc Asset Management (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 1(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, ground no.1 raised by assessee is allowed and assessment order framed found to be without jurisdiction

ITA 7292/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Gagan Goyalhsbc Asset Management (India) Pvt. Ltd. 3Rd Floor, Mercantile Bank Chamber, 16 Veer Nariman, Mumbai-400001 Pan: Aabch0007N ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-1(1)(2) Mumbai. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Niraj Sheth, Ar Respondent By : Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh Anand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/04/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit (A)’] Vide Order Dated 13.10.2017 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2008-09. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: The Following Grounds Of Appeal Are Distinct & Separate & Without Prejudice To Each Other. 1. On The Facts & In Law, The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) - 6, Mumbai [‘Cit(A)’] Erred In Upholding The Reassessment Proceedings Under Section 148 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Initiated After Four Years From The End Of Relevant Assessment Year, Without Appreciating The Fact That Assessment Under Section 143(3) Was Made & The Appellant Had Disclosed Fully & Truly All Material Facts Necessary

For Appellant: Sh. Niraj Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh Anand, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 37(1)Section 40A(9)

only where there was a failure on part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment: a) Our original assessment for the captioned year was completed Ws 143(3) read with section 144C of the Act by order dated January 30, 2012. Therefore ... that income has escaped assessment by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee has disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment and if the assessee has disclosed fully and truly all material fact, necessary for the assessment, notice of reassessment issued after four years