← 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

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. A.P.S. Foods (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1787/DEL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2015AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri A.T. Varkeya.Y. 2003-04

For Appellant: Shri KK Jaiswal, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Satyam Sethi, Adv
Section 68

assessee moved an application under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules challenging the reopening of the assessment. 2.1. The reasons recorded for reopening are as follows. ITA 1787/Del/2012 A.Y. 2003-04 APS Foods P.Ltd. “Information has been received from the Directorate of Income tax (Investigation), New Delhi, vide letter ... analysing materials produced subsequent to the reopening will not rescue an inherently defective reopening order from invalidity .” 7. A plain reading of the reasons recorded demonstrate that the A.O. has not applied his mind to the material/information received from the Director (Investigations). Without such independent application of mind

ACIT, Dehradun vs. M/S Dehradun Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd., Dehradun

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2976/DEL/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Ms. Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-2926/Del/2010 (Assessment Year-2005-06)

Section 148Section 148(2)Section 80P(2)

issued on 4/6/2007, which was duly served upon assessee on 13/6/2007. Despite the requests made by the assessee no extracts of the reason recorded under Section 148(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was provided to him. The Assessing Officer made addition in respect of grant of Rs.20 lakh ... observed in para 5.1 of the order that in spite of requests made by the assessee, no extracts of the reason recorded u/s 148(2) have been provided by the Ld. A.O. Therefore, the Ld. A.O’s omission to provide the extract of reasons to the appellant coupled with

Dehradyb Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd., Dehradun vs. ACIT, Dehradun

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2926/DEL/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Ms. Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-2926/Del/2010 (Assessment Year-2005-06)

Section 148Section 148(2)Section 80P(2)

issued on 4/6/2007, which was duly served upon assessee on 13/6/2007. Despite the requests made by the assessee no extracts of the reason recorded under Section 148(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was provided to him. The Assessing Officer made addition in respect of grant of Rs.20 lakh ... observed in para 5.1 of the order that in spite of requests made by the assessee, no extracts of the reason recorded u/s 148(2) have been provided by the Ld. A.O. Therefore, the Ld. A.O’s omission to provide the extract of reasons to the appellant coupled with

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. The Bagalkot Town Development Authority

ITA/100027/2014HC Karnataka15 Dec 2015

Bench: S.ABDUL NAZEER,P.S.DINESH KUMAR

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12Section 260ASection 263

argument advanced on behalf of the Revenue that assessee was not entitled for 15 exemption under Section 11 of the Act for the reasons recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax, is untenable and deserves to be rejected and accordingly rejected. 11. Resultantly, we hold that the questions

Surydarshan Co -Op Hsg Soc. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5092/MUM/2012[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2015AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./I.T.As. No.5092 To 5094/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :2002-04 To 2004-05) Suryadarshan Co-Op Hsg Income Tax Officer -16(1)(2), बनाम/ बनाम बनाम बनाम Soc.Ltd., Mumbai. Vs. 44/50, Walkeshwar Road, Walkeshwar, Mumbai-400006. .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 57

that advertisement income in Income & Expenditure Account was net of expenses. 2. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in not providing the copy of reasons recorded prior to issue of notice under section 148 to complete reassessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Further the Learned ... regard to the issue of re-opening of the assessment, we may point out that the learned. AR has raised the contention that the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening of the assessment should have been supplied to the assessee before the conclusion of the assessment. However

Mr Sunil Kr. Saha, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-55(1), Kolkata, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 327/KOL/2015[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Dec 2015AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri K. M. Roy, FCAFor Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

marriage anniversary and not a single gift exceeding Rs.10,000/- in each case. Ld. Counsel for the assessee before us stated that the very reasons recorded are fallacious and AO has not found any reasonable believe for reopening the assessment. I find that the argument of Ld. Counsel ... assessee is convincing that the reasons recorded are based on the assessee’s accounts only and that also according to AO are without any details regarding gifts. I find that the assessee has disclosed these gifts in the Balance Sheet and what type of evidence are to be filed with

Smt Fuleswari Das, Nadia vs. ITO, WD-3, Murshidabad, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of assessees are allowed

ITA 615/KOL/2014[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Dec 2015AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm]

For Appellant: S/ Shri A. K. Chakraborty & P. S. Gupta, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Tanuj Niyogi, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Tribunal. 4. I have heard rival submissions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. At the outset, I have noticed that the reasons recorded by AO are merely on the directions of the CIT-XXI, Kolkata, which is not application of mind ... turn, are reproduced above at para 3 and also comments of CIT at page 4 of CIT(A) at para 2.2. From the above reasons recorded by the AO for issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, it is clear that these are merely directions

Sri Ashok Kr. Das, Nadia vs. ITO, WD-3, Murshidabad, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of assessees are allowed

ITA 613/KOL/2014[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Dec 2015AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm]

For Appellant: S/ Shri A. K. Chakraborty & P. S. Gupta, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Tanuj Niyogi, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Tribunal. 4. I have heard rival submissions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. At the outset, I have noticed that the reasons recorded by AO are merely on the directions of the CIT-XXI, Kolkata, which is not application of mind ... turn, are reproduced above at para 3 and also comments of CIT at page 4 of CIT(A) at para 2.2. From the above reasons recorded by the AO for issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, it is clear that these are merely directions

Aksar Wire Products (P) Ltd., Faridabad vs. ACIT, Faridabad

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

ITA 1167/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 68

ignoring the binding decisions of the high court relied upon proceedings. 2. That reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 148 are void ab-initio since the reasons recorded are vague without reference to any material on record. There is no nexus or live link between the information/material and the formation of belief ... Assessing Officer to prove that share application money received was by way of accommodation entry as alleged by the Assessing Officer in the reasons recorded u/s 148. 5. The CIT(A) was not justified in presuming incorrect fact that shares were not allotted to the share applicant till date. Thus

M/S. Limelight Towers (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 580/DEL/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2015AY 2003-04

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2003-04 Limelight Towers (P) Ltd. Vs Acit, Central Circle-2, F-8, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi Phase-I, New Delhi (Pan: Aaacl2094C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Adv. & Sh. Shailesh Gupta, Ca. Respondent By : Sh. Yatendra Singh Singh, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.11.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.12.2015 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: The Present Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.11.2013 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-Vi, New Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2003-04, Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. That The Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Is Wrong, Bad In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. That The Learned Cit (Appeals) Should Have Allowed The Appeal As The Assessment Completed U/S 147 On The Basis Of Reopening By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Was Wrong & Bad Both In Law & On Facts. 3. That Both Cit (Appeals) & Assessing Officer Have Erred In Law & On Facts In Making An Addition Of Rs 10,50,000/-In Total Income Treating The Share Application Money As Unexplained Cash Credit U/S 68 Of I.T Act 1961 In Respect To The Following Shareholders: I. Pista Devi , C-277/3 Gali No 13 Bhajan Pura, Delhi

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Adv. & Sh. Shailesh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Yatendra Singh Singh, Sr DR
Section 132Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

Assessing Officer, who is below the rank of assistant Commissioner or Deputy commissioner, unless the Joint Commissioner is satisfied on the reasons recorded by such Assessing Officer that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice : Provided that, after the expiry of four years from ... year, no such notice shall be issued unless the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner is satisfied, on the reasons recorded by the Assessing o\Officer aforesaid, that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice. (2) In a case other than

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Whizzkid Finlease (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 74/DEL/2009[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2015AY 2000-01

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Hemant Chaudhary, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148

assessee remained un-complied with. On final opportunity given to the assessee for 24.11.2007, the AR of the assessee attended and sought copy of reasons recorded, which were supplied to him giving date for 10.12.2007, but none appeared on behalf of the assessee on that date. Since the case

ITO, Ghaziabad vs. M/S. S.K. Sons (HUF), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 4661/DEL/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2015AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sujit Kumar, Senior DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69

affidavit saying so; and also the AR pointed out that the assessee had in fact filed return of Income and the averment in the reasons recorded by the AO to reopen u/s 147 and 148 that the assessee had not filed the return of income timely in the assessment year

ITO 16(1)(3), Mumbai vs. L/H of Smt. Vimla Ratilal Mehta, Mumbai

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

ITA 3361/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Pawan Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3361/Mum/14 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) बनाम/ Income Tax Officer-16 Shri Ashok Mehta, L/H Of (L) Smt. Vimla Ratilal (1)(3) Vs. Mehta, 201, Jeevan Villa, Room No.220, 2Nd Floor, N Dhabholkar Road, Matru Mandir, Mumbai-400006 Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400007 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 132Section 69

account of the huge difference in stamp duty valuation and purchase price shown by the assessee. This comment is factually incorrect because the reasons recorded for re-opening the assessment do not 13 include any such observation. As far as the stamp duty valuation is concerned the appellant

Harakchand K Gada, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 2810/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Am & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm

For Appellant: Shri K. Mohandas
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

Mahanagar Securities Pvt. Ltd. In the grounds raised it was also contended that the AO had not provided assessee with copy of the reasons recorded for reopening assessment, till the completion of assessment and that in view of the above contentions, assessment was bad in law. 4.1.2 Before ... enter into any transactions amounting to `29,95,981/- during the 5 Shri Harakchand K. Gada relevant period, with the party cited in the reasons recorded by AO i.e. M/s. Gold Star Finvest Securities Pvt. Ltd. The learned A.R. for the assessee then took us through the order of assessment

Harakchand K Gada (HUF), Mumbai vs. It 16(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 2800/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Am & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm

For Appellant: Shri K. Mohandas
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

Mahanagar Securities Pvt. Ltd. In the grounds raised it was also contended that the AO had not provided assessee with copy of the reasons recorded for reopening assessment, till the completion of assessment and that in view of the above contentions, assessment was bad in law. 4.1.2 Before ... into any transactions amounting to `29,95,981/- during the 5 Shri Harakchand K. Gada (HUF) relevant period, with the party cited in the reasons recorded by AO i.e. M/s. Gold Star Finvest Securities Pvt. Ltd. The learned A.R. for the assessee then took us through the order of assessment

DCIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. Tata Sons Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue as well as cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1719/MUM/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.1719/Mum/2012 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2004-2005) Acit-2(3), Mumbai-20 Vs. M/S Tata Sons Ltd., Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai-400001 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaact 4060 A (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & Cross Objection No.70/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2004-2005) M/S Tata Sons Ltd., Bombay Vs. Acit-2(3), Mumbai-20 House, 24, Homi Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai-400001 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaact 4060 A (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By Manjunatha R Swamy : ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Dinesh Vyas सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 19/10/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 09/12/2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Mumbai, For The Assessment Year 2004-05, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) R.W.S.148 Of The It Act. 2. Rival Contentions Have Been Heard & Record Perused. In This Case, The Assessment Was Reopened By Issue Of Notice U/S.148 On 6-3-

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Vyas
Section 10ASection 142Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Garg, ACIT-2(3), Mumbai, (ii) 'The AO, Shri K. R. Iyengar, DCIT-2(3), Mumbai vide letter dated 25.08.2009 sent the attested' of reasons recorded for reopening the assessment for A.Y.2004-05, (iii) The attestedof reasons recorded' contents the date as 19.03.2009 signed by Shri Bharat B. Garg, ACIT ... Mumbai. It is seen that in the reasons recorded the AO states that store launch expenses of Rs.293.24 lakhs debited by the assessee in the P&L A/c needs to be added back in the computation of income and in the second last Para the AO writes that

Lucky Commotrade (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-6(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 995/KOL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Dec 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

For Respondent: Shri Shital C.Das, JCIT, ld.DR
Section 143(1)Section 147

reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment as he had no tangible material to re-open the assessment. Now we reproduce the reasons recorded by the ld.AO herein below:- “In course of assessment proceedings for Asstt. Year 2007-08, in respect of my assessee named Bhagwati Sponge Pvt.Limited

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Nbcc Ltd., New Delhi

In the result CO 164/Del /2012 of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the revenue in ITA no 939/Del/2012 is dismissed

ITA 939/DEL/2012[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2015AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiacit, Nbcc Ltd., Circle-13(1), Nbcc House, Vs. Room No.406, Lodhi Road, C.R.Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaacn3053B (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.164/Del/2012 (In Ita No. 939/Del/2012) (Assessment Year: 2002-03) Nbcc Ltd., Acit, Nbcc House, Circle-13(1), Vs. Lodhi Road, Room No.406, New Delhi C.R.Building, I.P. Estate, Pan:Aaacn3053B New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : - Sh. Balwan Choudhary, Cit Dr Assessee By : Sh. Suresh Gupta, Ca Sh. Somil Aggarwal, Adv

For Appellant: Sh. Suresh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: - Sh. Balwan Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 36(1)(vii)

impugned assessment u/s 147/143(3) which is bad in law, unjustified, against the principles of natural justice and void ab initio more so reasons, recorded are invalid in the eyes of law and no valid satisfaction- u/s 151 has been, obtained before issuance of notice u/s 148.” 3. The facts ... possession of the AO on which reopening is based. Therefore he submitted that reopening is invalid. For this he relied up on the reason recorded by ld AO for reopening which are reproduced at page no 3 of the order of CIT (A). he submitted that

Dr. Saphal Shetty, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Pondicherry

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1319/CHNY/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1318 & 1319/Mds/2015. "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2003-04 & 2004-2005. Dr. Saphal Shetty, The Assistant Commissioner Of No.670, 10Th Cross, West Of V. Income Tax, Chord Road, Circle 1, Mahalakshmipuram Post, Puducherry. Bangalore 560 086. Pan : Alips 4414R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Venkatesan, F.C.A ""For Respondent: Shri. P.Radhakrishnan, IRS, JCIT
Section 133ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 44A

rejected the ground of reopening with observations at page 4 para.3.1.2 of the order as under:- ‘’3.1.2 I find from the reasons recorded that the AO had enough reasons to believe that the income had escaped assessment within the meaning of section ... data and also in respect of personal expenses. From the above events it is crystal clear that the. appellant was fully aware of the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment. Had it not been so, the appellant would not have participated fully in the process of reassessment and also

Dr. Saphal Shetty, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Pondicherry

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1318/CHNY/2015[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2015AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1318 & 1319/Mds/2015. "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2003-04 & 2004-2005. Dr. Saphal Shetty, The Assistant Commissioner Of No.670, 10Th Cross, West Of V. Income Tax, Chord Road, Circle 1, Mahalakshmipuram Post, Puducherry. Bangalore 560 086. Pan : Alips 4414R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Venkatesan, F.C.A ""For Respondent: Shri. P.Radhakrishnan, IRS, JCIT
Section 133ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 44A

rejected the ground of reopening with observations at page 4 para.3.1.2 of the order as under:- ‘’3.1.2 I find from the reasons recorded that the AO had enough reasons to believe that the income had escaped assessment within the meaning of section ... data and also in respect of personal expenses. From the above events it is crystal clear that the. appellant was fully aware of the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment. Had it not been so, the appellant would not have participated fully in the process of reassessment and also