← All Phrases

“reasons recorded”

ReassessmentSection 148Section 14813,127 judgments

The decision most relied on for reasons recorded is Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar (268 ITR 332), cited in 695 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on reasons recorded

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.

T.S. Balaram ITO v. Volkart Bros.
82 ITR 50 · 1971 · Supreme Court
382
citing judgments

A mistake apparent from the record under Section 154 must be an obvious and patent error, not one that requires a long and elaborate process of reasoning or where two opinions are conceivable. Rectification under Section 154 is not permissible for re-examining issues already considered or requiring detailed re-computation.

CIT v. Orient Craft Ltd.
354 ITR 536 · 2013 · High Court
366
citing judgments

Reassessment of income, especially after a summary assessment under Section 143(1), requires the Assessing Officer to possess fresh, tangible material to form a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment; a mere reappraisal of existing records or a change of opinion without new material is not permissible.

222 Taxman 15 (Gujarat)(MAG.), Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-4 v. G & G Pharma India Ltd.
384 ITR 147 · 2016 · High Court
274
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings are invalid if initiated based on documents already available on record without fresh tangible material, and if the sanction under section 151 is accorded mechanically, indicating non-application of mind.

M/s Sahara India (Farms) v. CIT & Anr.
300 ITR 403 · 2008 · Supreme Court
268
citing judgments

The requirement of statutory prior approval by a high-ranking authority, even if administrative, serves as an in-built protection against arbitrary exercise of power by the Assessing Officer. While such approval need not record elaborate reasoning, the approving authority has a heavy duty to ensure it is not an empty ritual, fulfilling its purpose of supervisory control.

Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company v. CIT
308 ITR 38 · 2009 · High Court
248
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings are invalid if the reasons recorded for initiating action under section 148 are not served on the assessee within the limitation period prescribed by section 149. Furthermore, reassessment cannot be based on a mere change of opinion without tangible material, particularly when the assessee has made a full and true disclosure of material facts.

Pepsi Foods (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT
367 ITR 112 · 2014 · High Court
225
citing judgments

For assessments under Section 153C, a specific satisfaction note by the Assessing Officer of the person searched, recorded prior to initiating proceedings, is a jurisdictional prerequisite, rendering its absence void. The approval function under Section 153D is administrative and does not require elaborate reasoning.

Sarthak Securities Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO
329 ITR 110 · 2010 · High Court
217
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings under Section 147 are invalid if the Assessing Officer records satisfaction based on borrowed satisfaction or information without independently applying their mind and forming their own 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment. The AO must arrive at an independent conclusion, not merely act on a report from an investigation wing without due diligence.

Judgments citing reasons recorded

M/S Aman Gold Plaza, Puttur vs. ITO, Puttur

In the result, all the four appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4/BANG/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Ms. Vanaja, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms. Renuka Devi, Jt. CIT(DR)
Section 148Section 271A

filed an additional ground, which reads as under:- ITA Nos.4 to 6 & 8/Bang/2015 Page 2 of 6 “On the facts and circumstances of case, reasons recorded u/s. 148 of the Act is not furnished and is not according to the provisions of the Act and therefore Assessment Order is invalid ... additional ground that the assessee has challenged the validity of section 148 notice issued by the AO and non-furnishing of the reasons recorded by the AO, despite a specific request made by the assessee. 4. Since the issue in the additional ground is purely legal in nature and goes

Sh. Rajiv Mahajan, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 1100/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.L.P.Sahu

Section 147Section 148

confirming the order of the AO despite the fact that the initiation of proceedings are bad in law as the reasons recorded for issue of notice under section 148 are bad in the eye of law. I.T.A .No.-1100/Del/2016 (iii) That the learned CIT(A) has erred both ... appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal.” 2. The Ld.AR inviting attention to the copy of the reasons recorded in para 3 of the assessment order and relying upon the full extract of the reasons recorded submitted that in the facts

Raj Bala, Delhi vs. ITO, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2008/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 Smt. Raj Bala, Village Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Mandola Loni, H-5, West 2(2), Ghaziabad Jyoti Nagar, Loni Road, Delhi Gir/Pan :Aanpr2043K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. C.S. Anand, Adv. Respondent By Sh. V.P. Mishra, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 07.06.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 27.07.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25/02/2013 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Ghaziabad, For Assessment Year 2006-07, Raising Following Grounds: I. That On The Facts Of The Case & Under The Law, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Rejecting The Assessee’S Claim That The Learned A.O. Had Wrongly/Illegally Assumed Jurisdiction To Issue Notice U/S 148. Ii. That On The Facts Of The Case & Under The Law, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Upholding The Addition Of Rs. 4,08,000/-, Made By The Learned A.O. U/S 69 In The Hands Of The Assessee For A.Y. 2006-07

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 69

under section 147 of the Act were recorded on 04/04/2008 on receipt of a letter from the assessee on 24/03/2008, seeking the copy of reasons recorded. He further submitted that as per the settled law the Assessing Officer was required to record reasons for initiating the proceedings under section ... learned Senior Departmental Representative, on the other hand, relying on the order of the authorities below submitted that the averment of the assessee that reasons recorded after the issue of notice is without any documentary evidence and, therefore, needs to be rejected. 4.3 We have heard the rival submissions

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Indo Rama Synthetics (I) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2673/DEL/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Saroha, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv
Section 115Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

account of unabsorbed business loss/depreciation has been allowed to the assessee in computing the profits under section 115 JB of the Act the reasons recorded by the ld. AO are as under: “In this case the assessment is completed ... been initiated in the absence of failure on the part of the appellant to disclose fully and truly all material facts. Neither do the reasons recorded by the assessing officer nor the impugned order make any reference to the failure of the appellant to disclose fully and truly all material

Rawat Metals, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 1375/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Senior DR
Section 148

rejecting the contention of the assessee that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the learned AO are bad in the eye of law as the reasons recorded for the issue of notice under Section 148 are bad in the eye of law and are contrary to the facts

Sri. A.S. Chinnaswamy Raju, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 1559/BANG/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri S. Venkatesan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT-I (D.R)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

challenged the reopening and its validity. The Supreme Court in the case GKN Driveshafts (2003) 259 ITR 19 had categorically held that the reasons recorded must be provided to the assessee and the objections as made by the assessee are required to be dealt with the Assessing Officer ... present case, other than providing the reasons recorded the Assessing Officer had not dealt with the objections though the assessee had filed their objections. In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, this matter requires to be remanded to the Assessing Officer to apply the principle

Carol Info Services Ltd ( Formelry Knwoan As Wochkhardt Life Science Ltd), Mumbai vs. ACIT RG 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals for AYs 2000-01 & 2001-02 filed by assessee are allowed

ITA 468/MUM/2011[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2016AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora / NikhilFor Respondent: Shri Deepkant Prasad and Saurabh Despande (DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 234Section 234BSection 234B(3)Section 234DSection 44A

proceeding. 5. With regard to the challenge to the validity of reassessment proceedings, the first and foremost plea of the assessee is that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer were incorrect and, therefore, there was no reason to entertain a belief for escapement of income. In this context ... attention was invited to the reasons recorded, which we have already noted in an earlier part of this order, whereby it was sought to be pointed out that reopening is justified on two grounds, viz., that the addition to the block of assets was made under the head ‘factory building

Dow Chemical Internaitnal P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 10(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6686/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No. 5880/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2004-05 The Acit-10(2), M/S. Dow Chemicals बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, International International Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Pvt. Ltd., 1St Floor, Block B, 02, Godrej I.T. Park, Godrej Business District, Pirojshanagar, Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (W), Mumbai- 400 079

For Appellant: Shri M.P. LohiaFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Chand

that they constitute comparison of a controlled transactions with another controlled transaction. 8.19. Thus taking an overall view of the matter and for the reasons recorded I am of the considered view that there would be no transfer pricing adjustment in adjustment in appellants case. On going through the order

Addl CIT 10(2), Mumbai vs. Dow Chemicals Internaitonal P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5880/MUM/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No. 5880/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2004-05 The Acit-10(2), M/S. Dow Chemicals बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, International International Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Pvt. Ltd., 1St Floor, Block B, 02, Godrej I.T. Park, Godrej Business District, Pirojshanagar, Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (W), Mumbai- 400 079

For Appellant: Shri M.P. LohiaFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Chand

that they constitute comparison of a controlled transactions with another controlled transaction. 8.19. Thus taking an overall view of the matter and for the reasons recorded I am of the considered view that there would be no transfer pricing adjustment in adjustment in appellants case. On going through the order

Rc Golden Granites Private Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 897/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.As. No.897, 898, 899 & 900/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12. Rc Golden Granites Private Ltd, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.17,Type Ii, Company Ward V(1) Dr.Vsi Estate, Chennai. Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai 600 041. [Pan Aadcr3826P ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. T. Banusekar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Supriya Pal, JCIT
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 1OSection 264Section 40A(3)

evidence on record. Subsequently, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) perused the grounds and findings of the ld. Assessing Officer and the reasons recorded by the ld.AO in his order referred at page 4. The ld. Authorised Representative in compliance to grounds of appeal and additional evidence has filed

Sri. Manmohan Saboo, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

ITA 1297/BANG/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri A.K.Garodia, Am (Smc)

For Appellant: Shri V.Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Swapna Das, JCIT
Section 147Section 148Section 234B

adjudication. Regarding validity of re-opening as per ground no. 2, it was submitted by the ld. AR of the assessee that the reasons recorded by the AO for re-opening are available on pages 15-16 of the paper book. He further submitted that the agreement of sale ... belief that income had escaped assessment within the meaning of Sec.147 for notice u/s.148 to be issued. Moreover, it is on record that the reasons recorded have been communicated to the appellant and the objections raised by the appellant against action u/s.147 have been disposed of vide proceedings dated 18/3/2014

DCIT 10(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Hexaware Technologies Ltd, Navi Mumbai

ITA 64/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2016AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri Anuj KishandwalaFor Respondent: Shri N. Sathya Moorthy-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 50B

unabsorbed depreciation the taxable income was computed at Rs. Nil.Vide its letter dated 11/04/2013,the assessee asked the AO to provide the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment.The AO supplied the copy of the reasons vide his letter dated 26/11/2013.He directed the assessee to furnish explanation ... assessee to disclose material facts. 4.Before us,the Departmental Representative(DR)supported the order of the AO.The Authorised Representative(AR)argued that in the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening the assessment there is no mention of failure of the assessee to disclose material facts,that in absence

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2 vs. M/S. Bechtel India Pvt. Ltd

The appeal is dismissed with costs of ₹1 lac payable to the respondent

ITA/379/2016HC Delhi21 Jul 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 100Section 106Section 50

October, 2009 till handing over of the possession. 6. The First Appellate Court concurred with the finding of the learned Trial Court for the reasons recorded in para 10 to 12 of the impugned judgment which read as under: “10. It is pertinent to mention that in the suit

Epcos India Private Limited, Nadia vs. A.C.I.T Cir - 11, Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assesee is allowed

ITA 1921/KOL/2013[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jul 2016AY 1998-99

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 1921/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 1998-99 Epcos India Pvt. Ltd. -Vs.- A.C.I.T., Circle-11, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaaci 6950 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Anup Sinha, Ar For The Respondent : Shri Debashis Lahiri, Jcit, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Anup Sinha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Debashis Lahiri, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147

thereon u/s 115JA of the Act. 5. While the matter stood thus, the AO issued notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 30.06.2014. The reasons recorded by the AO while issuing notice u/s 148 were as follows :- 3 4 Epcos India Pvt.Ltd. A.Yr.1998-99 “Reasons for reopening the assessment ... Chand Bajrang Lal [1993] 69 Taxman 627 (SC). 13. We have considered the rival submissions. In the present case, the facts on record and reasons recorded clearly show that all facts were available before the AO when he completed the original assessment proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Act. From

Innovators Facade Systems P.Ltd, Thane vs. ACIT Cir 2, Thane

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed in part

ITA 5450/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Naresh Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pavan Kumar Beerla, DR
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

assessee challenged, validity of reopening as well as merit of addition. 8. After going through the order of the lower authorities as well as reasons recorded for reopening, we find that the AO had specific information that the assessee had obtained accommodation bills from Assessment Year

DCIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Jewelex India P Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the cross objections filed by the assessee are hereby allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 7240/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2008-09 Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S. Jewelex India Pvt. Ltd., Tax, - 3(2)(1), 401, Trade Centre, R.No.674, 6Th Floor, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Aayakar Bhavan, Bandra (East), M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 051 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aabcj4523H (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.81/M/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita No.7240/M/2014) Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Jewelex India Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income 401, Trade Centre, Tax, - 3(2)(1), R.No.674, 6Th Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Bandra (East), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 051 M.K. Road, Pan: Aabcj4523H Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, A.R. Shri P.P. Bhandari, A.RFor Respondent: Shri C.W. Angolkar, D.R
Section 10ASection 10BSection 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 1O

that the very reopening of the assessment in this case was bad in law. He, in this respect, has invited our attention to the reasons recorded for the reopening of the assessment as extracted in para 3.2 of the impugned order which for the sake of convenience are reproduced

Asst CIT Cen RG 7, Mumbai vs. Prime Focus Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s cross objection is allowed and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 6203/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6203/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) Asst. Cit (Osd)-I, Prime Focus Ltd. Central Range-7, 2, Anand Kunj, North Avenue, बनाम/ Room No. 413, 4Th Floor, Santacruz (W), Mumbai-400 054 Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Marg, Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacp 6811 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : & ""या"ेप सं./C.O. No. 44/Mum/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 6203/Mum/2014) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) Prime Focus Ltd. Asst. Cit (Osd)-I, 2, Anand Kunj, North Avenue, Central Range-7, बनाम/ Room No. 413, 4Th Floor, Santacruz (W), Mumbai-400 054 Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Marg, Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacp 6811 B (""या"ेपक/Cross Objector) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Premanand J. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Rushabh H. Vyas

For Appellant: Shri Premanand JFor Respondent: Shri Rushabh H. Vyas
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154

instant case is clearly beyond a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. We firstly note that the reasons recorded 6 ITA No. 6203/Mum/2014 & CO No. 44/Mum/2016 (A.Y. 2005­06) Prime Focus Ltd. state that the computer is a part comprising the editing equipment ... assessee’s accounts and details itself. How could then it be regarded as valid, considering that no fresh material or fact informs the ‘reasons recorded’. We further observe that the assessee had filed complete particulars relating to these items, i.e., editing equipments, which are enclosed in the assessee’s paper

ACIT 24(3), Mumbai vs. Rakesh Kumar Garodia, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4528/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm Acit 24(3), Shri Rakesh Kumar Garodia, Room No.413,7Th Floor, Vs. ¾ Govind Nagar, Pawan Baug Road, Bkc, Bandra (E), Malad (West), Mumbai-400061. Mumbai-400051. Pan/Gir No.: Aaapg8736D (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Singh(AR)For Respondent: Shri Nitin R. Waghmode (DR)
Section 10(42)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(v)

assessment. The assessee filed the reply to the notice of re-opening vide reply dated 09.06.2011. Along with reply, the assessee sought for the reasons recorded for re- opening. The reasons for re-opening was supplied to the assessee vide letter dated 28.07.2011, thereafter, assessee submitted vide his letter dated

Sri. N.G. Chandra Reddy (HUF), Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 390/BANG/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Renukadevi, JCIT (D.R)
Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 234ASection 53A

under : 6 “F.No.AC-7(1)/12-13 Dated : 25.04.2012. To Mr. N.G. Chandra Reddy, 22/222, Doddankundi Village, Marthahalli, Bangalore-560 037 Madam, Sub : Furnishing of reasons recorded for reopening u/s.147 as requested by you for the A.Y. 2005-06. -- -- -- -- -- Kind reference is invited to the above. The reasons recorded for reopening

Sri. G.A. Ramaswamy Reddy, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

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

ITA 286/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoshri G.A.Ramaswamy Reddy, No.173, Gunjur Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore. … Appellant Pan:Aanhr 4650 L Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 7(3), Bangalore. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Muthukrishnan , CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT(DR)
Section 139(1)Section 142Section 147Section 234Section 54BSection 54F

void- ab-initio for want of requisite jurisdiction especially, as there was no income escaping assessment having regard to the reasons recorded by the learned A.O. and consequently, the order of re-assessment passed by the learned A.O. requires to be cancelled. 2[b] The reopening of the assessment ... assessee, reasons were recorded which formed the ground for the AC to believe that income had escaped assessment for AY 2008-09. The reasons recorded were communicated to the appellant vide letter dt. 09-01-2012 by the AO, as requested by the appellant. The fact of a high Page