← All Phrases

“Section 147(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 147Section 147(1)98 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 147(1) is Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (167 ITR 471), cited in 3,926 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 147(1)

Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji
167 ITR 471 · 1987 · Supreme Court
3,926
citing judgments

Delay in filing appeals, when supported by sufficient or justifiable cause, should be condoned with a liberal approach to ensure substantial justice. This principle prioritizes the cause of justice over mere technicalities.

CIT v. Kabul Chawla
380 ITR 573 · 2016 · High Court
3,235
citing judgments

In a search assessment under Section 153A, additions can only be made for completed or non-abated assessment years if incriminating material relevant to those years is found during the search, although notice under Section 153A(1) is mandatorily issued for six assessment years preceding the search.

Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT
243 ITR 83 · 2000 · Supreme Court
2,943
citing judgments

For revision under Section 263, the Assessing Officer's order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue; if either condition is not met, the revisionary jurisdiction cannot be invoked. An order is not erroneous merely because the Assessing Officer did not record the details of enquiries conducted, provided due enquiries were made.

CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.
38 ITD 320 · 1991 · ITAT
2,267
citing judgments

An appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can be dismissed for non-prosecution or treated as unadmitted when the appellant fails to appear, cooperate, or show diligence, in accordance with Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules. The law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.

CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.
322 ITR 158 · 2010 · Supreme Court
2,228
citing judgments

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income is not automatically leviable if the assessee has made a full disclosure of all particulars and the addition or disallowance arises from a difference of opinion.

Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT
223 ITR 480 · 1997 · High Court
2,040
citing judgments

A court or tribunal is not bound to answer a reference or adjudicate an appeal on its merits if the party at whose instance the proceeding is made fails to appear at the hearing or take necessary steps for its proper conduct.

Sumati Dayal v. CIT
214 ITR 801 · 1995 · Supreme Court
1,967
citing judgments

The Revenue is entitled to look behind the apparent form of a transaction to discover its true nature, applying the test of human probabilities and surrounding circumstances. If transactions defy logic or are unnatural, they can be treated as bogus, even if supported by some documentation, especially in cases of cash credits or unexplained investments.

Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT
284 ITR 323 · 2006 · Supreme Court
1,842
citing judgments

An assessee cannot raise a new claim or a claim not made in the original or revised return of income for the first time directly before the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings.

Judgments citing Section 147(1)

DCIT(It) - 2(2)(2), Air India Building vs. The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd, Bandra

ITA 1334/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka & Shri Divesh Chawla, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 44ASection 92E

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण न्यायपीठ, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON

DCIT(It)-2(2)(2), Air India Building vs. The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd, Bandra

ITA 1333/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka & Shri Divesh Chawla, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 44ASection 92E

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण न्यायपीठ, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3 4 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited, Mumbai

ITA 1374/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Choughule
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(3)Section 147Section 148Section 37(1)Section 80G

initiated merely on account of change of opinion. Therefore, the same should be quashed as being in contravention of the provisions contained in Section 147(1) of the Act. 10. Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative had contended that the reassessment proceedings could be initiated even on the basis

Kapil Infra Avenues Private Limited, Vijayawada vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 686/HYD/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Reema Yadav, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

beyond 4 years from the end of relevant assessment year. Once the assessment has been reopened after 4 years, then proviso to Section 147(1) of the Act comes into operation and as per said provision, the assessment cannot be reopened unless there is a finding from the Assessing Officer ... beyond 4 years from the end of relevant assessment year. Once the assessment has been reopened after 4 years, then proviso to Section 147(1) of the Act comes into operation and as per said provision, the assessment cannot be reopened unless there is a finding from the Assessing Officer

Kasusalya Shelters Private Limited, Karimnagar vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 680/HYD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Reema Yadav, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 153CSection 36(1)(iii)

beyond 4 years from the end of relevant assessment year. Once the assessment has been reopened after 4 years, then proviso to Section 147(1) of the Act comes into operation and as per said provision, the assessment cannot be reopened unless there is a finding from the Assessing Officer

Kasusalya Shelters Private Limited, Karimnagar vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 679/HYD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Reema Yadav, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 153CSection 36(1)(iii)

beyond 4 years from the end of relevant assessment year. Once the assessment has been reopened after 4 years, then proviso to Section 147(1) of the Act comes into operation and as per said provision, the assessment cannot be reopened unless there is a finding from the Assessing Officer

Kausalya Agro Forms & Developers Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 676/HYD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Reema Yadav, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

beyond 4 years from the end of relevant assessment year. Once the assessment has been reopened after 4 years, then proviso to Section 147(1) of the Act comes into operation and as per said provision, the assessment cannot be reopened unless there is a finding from the Assessing Officer

Kausalya Agro Forms & Developers Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 675/HYD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Reema Yadav, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

beyond 4 years from the end of relevant assessment year. Once the assessment has been reopened after 4 years, then proviso to Section 147(1) of the Act comes into operation and as per said provision, the assessment cannot be reopened unless there is a finding from the Assessing Officer

Ujwala Publications and Developers Private Limited, Warangal vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 658/HYD/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2012-13 Ujwala Publications & Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Developers Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Warangal. Central Circle – 2(3), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaacu6544J (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S. Ramarao, Advocate Revenue By: Ms. Reema Yadav, Sr.Ar. Date Of Hearing: 31.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.09.2024

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Reema Yadav, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

beyond 4 years from the end of relevant assessment year. Once the assessment has been reopened after 4 years, then proviso to Section 147(1) of the Act comes into operation and as per said provision, the assessment cannot be reopened unless there is a finding from the Assessing Officer

Nalgonda Realtors Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 657/HYD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Reema Yadav, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

beyond 4 years from the end of relevant assessment year. Once the assessment has been reopened after 4 years, then proviso to Section 147(1) of the Act comes into operation and as per said provision, the assessment cannot be reopened unless there is a finding from the Assessing Officer ... beyond 4 years from the end of relevant assessment year. Once the assessment has been reopened after 4 years, then proviso to Section 147(1) of the Act comes into operation and as per said provision, the assessment cannot be reopened unless there is a finding from the Assessing Officer

Nalgonda Realtors Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 656/HYD/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Reema Yadav, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

beyond 4 years from the end of relevant assessment year. Once the assessment has been reopened after 4 years, then proviso to Section 147(1) of the Act comes into operation and as per said provision, the assessment cannot be reopened unless there is a finding from the Assessing Officer ... beyond 4 years from the end of relevant assessment year. Once the assessment has been reopened after 4 years, then proviso to Section 147(1) of the Act comes into operation and as per said provision, the assessment cannot be reopened unless there is a finding from the Assessing Officer

Nalgonda Realtors Private Limited, Secunderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 655/HYD/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Reema Yadav, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

beyond 4 years from the end of relevant assessment year. Once the assessment has been reopened after 4 years, then proviso to Section 147(1) of the Act comes into operation and as per said provision, the assessment cannot be reopened unless there is a finding from the Assessing Officer ... beyond 4 years from the end of relevant assessment year. Once the assessment has been reopened after 4 years, then proviso to Section 147(1) of the Act comes into operation and as per said provision, the assessment cannot be reopened unless there is a finding from the Assessing Officer

Kapil Food and Structure Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 654/HYD/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Reema Yadav, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

beyond 4 years from the end of relevant assessment year. Once the assessment has been reopened after 4 years, then proviso to Section 147(1) of the Act comes into operation and as per said provision, the assessment cannot be reopened unless there is a finding from the Assessing Officer ... beyond 4 years from the end of relevant assessment year. Once the assessment has been reopened after 4 years, then proviso to Section 147(1) of the Act comes into operation and as per said provision, the assessment cannot be reopened unless there is a finding from the Assessing Officer

Kapil Property Developers Limited, Hanumakonda vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad

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

ITA 652/HYD/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Reema Yadav, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

beyond 4 years from the end of relevant assessment year. Once the assessment has been reopened after 4 years, then proviso to Section 147(1) of the Act comes into operation and as per said provision, the assessment cannot be reopened unless there is a finding from the Assessing Officer ... beyond 4 years from the end of relevant assessment year. Once the assessment has been reopened after 4 years, then proviso to Section 147(1) of the Act comes into operation and as per said provision, the assessment cannot be reopened unless there is a finding from the Assessing Officer

Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Surat, Gujrat vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the three appeal for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 of the assessee are allowed

ITA 759/KOL/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.757 To 759/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aafcp2218P) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appeared For Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 26.08.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: The Captioned Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2011-12 To 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 03.11.2022 Arising Out Of The Separate Assessment Orders U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata Dated 31.12.2018. Since Grounds Of Appeal Raised In These Appeals Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Dispose Of All These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA Before Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member

Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Surat, Gujrat vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the three appeal for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 of the assessee are allowed

ITA 758/KOL/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.757 To 759/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aafcp2218P) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appeared For Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 26.08.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: The Captioned Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2011-12 To 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 03.11.2022 Arising Out Of The Separate Assessment Orders U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata Dated 31.12.2018. Since Grounds Of Appeal Raised In These Appeals Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Dispose Of All These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA Before Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member

Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Surat, Gujrat vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the three appeal for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 of the assessee are allowed

ITA 757/KOL/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.757 To 759/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aafcp2218P) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appeared For Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 26.08.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: The Captioned Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2011-12 To 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 03.11.2022 Arising Out Of The Separate Assessment Orders U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata Dated 31.12.2018. Since Grounds Of Appeal Raised In These Appeals Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Dispose Of All These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA Before Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member

Thayappa Balakrishna, Bangalore vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-1, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1027/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Thayappa Balakrishna, No. 987, 11Th Main, The Principal 1St Block, Commissioner Of 3Rd Stage, Income-Tax, Basaveshwaranagar, Bengaluru – 1. Vs. Bangalore – 560 079. Pan: Abdpb4893N Appellant Respondent : Shri Ravi Shankar .S.V, Assessee By Advocate Revenue By : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr

For Respondent: Shri Ravi Shankar .S.V
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

issue of interpretation that has arisen for decision in these appeals, both as a.matter of first principle, based on the language used in section 147(1) and on the basis of the precedent on the subject. We agree with the submission which has been urged on behalf of the assessee ... that section 147(1) as it stands postulates that upon the formation of a reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess such income "and also" any other income chargeable to tax which comes

Sanjay Sawhney, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 34(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4051/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: MS. MADHUMITA ROY (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

considers ….",here, application of his own mind becomes important. It is important to examine the similarity of the expression used under section 147(1) and 263(1). Under section 147(1), the expression used is "has reason to believe" and under section 263(1), the expression used

Ritu Multitrade Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 8(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 939/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

issue of interpretation that has arisen for decision in these appeals, both as a.matter of first principle, based on the language used in section 147(1) and on the basis of the precedent on the subject. We agree with the submission which has been urged on behalf of the assessee ... that section 147(1) as it stands postulates that upon the formation of a reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess such income "and also" any other income chargeable to tax which comes