SHRI. JITENDRA VIRWANI,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

45 Taxman 213 (Pat.), it was held: "Where the Assessing Officer does not himself exercise his jurisdiction under Section 147 but merely acts at the behest of any superior authority, it must be held that assumption of jurisdiction was bad for non-satisfaction of the condition precedent." 39. 9. The Apex Court in the case of AnirudhSinhji KaranSinhji Jadeja

SHRI. JITENDRA VIRWANI,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

45 Taxman 213 (Pat.), it was held: "Where the Assessing Officer does not himself exercise his jurisdiction under Section 147 but merely acts at the behest of any superior authority, it must be held that assumption of jurisdiction was bad for non-satisfaction of the condition precedent." 39. 9. The Apex Court in the case of AnirudhSinhji KaranSinhji Jadeja

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE vs. MR. D K SHIVAKUMAR, BANGALORE

reassess the\ntotal income, where search is conducted u/s 132 or requisition is made u/s 132A.\nTherefore, in our opinion, the AO is not justified in reopening the assessment u/s 147\nand his order is illegal and arbitrary. In view of the above and in view of the decision\nrelied upon by the assessee, we do not find any merit

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE vs. MR. D K SHIVAKUMAR, BANGALORE

In the result, we allow appeal filed by the assessee

reassess the\ntotal income, where search is conducted u/s 132 or requisition is made u/s 132A.\nTherefore, in our opinion, the AO is not justified in reopening the assessment u/s 147\nand his order is illegal and arbitrary. In view of the above and in view of the decision\nrelied upon by the assessee, we do not find any merit

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE vs. MR. D K SHIVAKUMAR, BANGALORE

reassess the\ntotal income, where search is conducted u/s 132 or requisition is made u/s 132A.\nTherefore, in our opinion, the AO is not justified in reopening the assessment u/s 147\nand his order is illegal and arbitrary. In view of the above and in view of the decision\nrelied upon by the assessee, we do not find any merit

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE vs. MR. D K SHIVAKUMAR, BANGALORE

In the result, we allow appeal filed by the assessee

reassess the\ntotal income, where search is conducted u/s 132 or requisition is made u/s 132A.\nTherefore, in our opinion, the AO is not justified in reopening the assessment u/s 147\nand his order is illegal and arbitrary. In view of the above and in view of the decision\nrelied upon by the assessee, we do not find any merit

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(2)(3), BANGALORE vs. SRI MADE GOWDA THIBBE GOWDA, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and CO of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2008-09

u/s. 147 depends upon the issuance of a valid notice. If the notice issued by him is invalid for any reason the entire proceedings taken by him would become void for want of jurisdiction.” & CO No.51/Bang/2019 Page 26 of 38 42. The Tribunal in Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax v. Radheshyam Mohanlal Maheshwari [2011] 12 ITR(TRIB.) 429 (AHD.) held

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. SHRI. JAGADISH N HINDUJA, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and COs filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aacph7291Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aaeph5197H Appellant Respondent C.O. No.48/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1373/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent C.O. No.49/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1374/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Susan Dolores George, D.R. Respondent By : Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R.

reassessed. To Confer jurisdictionunder section 147(a) two conditions were required to ITA Nos.1373 & 1374/Bang/2012 & CO. Nos.48 & 49/Bang/2013 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja, Bangalore Page 21 of 78 be satisfied firstly the Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that income profits or gains chargeable to income tax have escaped assessment, and secondly he must also have reason to believe that

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. SHRI. SUMIR J HINDUJA, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and COs filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aacph7291Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aaeph5197H Appellant Respondent C.O. No.48/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1373/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent C.O. No.49/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1374/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Susan Dolores George, D.R. Respondent By : Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R.

reassessed. To Confer jurisdictionunder section 147(a) two conditions were required to ITA Nos.1373 & 1374/Bang/2012 & CO. Nos.48 & 49/Bang/2013 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja, Bangalore Page 21 of 78 be satisfied firstly the Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that income profits or gains chargeable to income tax have escaped assessment, and secondly he must also have reason to believe that

SUNITA MADHOK ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

sections 148 to 153, assess or reassess such income….” , Hence the basic requirement for initiating proceedings u/s. 147 is that the AO should have “reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment”. 44. We have gone through the reasons recorded for these two assessment years which are as follows:- “Assessment Year 2006-2007: "Based

SUNITA MADHOK ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

sections 148 to 153, assess or reassess such income….” , Hence the basic requirement for initiating proceedings u/s. 147 is that the AO should have “reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment”. 44. We have gone through the reasons recorded for these two assessment years which are as follows:- “Assessment Year 2006-2007: "Based

LOKESH TALANKI ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

reassessment cannot be faulted as the same was based on information derived from the tax audit report. The tax audit report had already been submitted by the assessed. It is one thing to say that the Assessing Officer had received information from an audit report which was not before the ITO, but it is another thing to say that such

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(2), BANGALORE vs. MR. M R SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

u/s. 147 of the Act as against 153C since the Ld.AO reopened the assessment based on materials seized during a search. Before we proceed with the analysing applicability of section 148 vis-à-vis 153C it is necessary to extract the relevant context. "Assessment of income of any other person. - 153C. [(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. SRI. SRINIVAS RAO HOSKOTE, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri. Jason P. Boaz & Shri. Laliet Kumari.T.A Nos.1154 & 1155/Bang/2015 (Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12) Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle -2(3)(1), Bengaluru .. Appellant V. Shri. Srinivas Rao Hoskote, No.4/7, 3Rd Floor, Sidda Enclave Nehrunagar, 1St Main Road, Seshadripuram Bengaluru 560 020 .. Respondent Pan : Aaeph8477J Assessee By : Shri. V. Chandrashekar, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Padmameenakshi, Jcit Heard On : 31.01.2018 Pronounced On : 21.02.2018 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar:

section 153A". 3.9 In the present. Case, the assessment proceedings have been commenced and completed u/s 147, which is patently erroneous, and renders the entire assessment proceedings void abinitio as urged by the appellant. ITA.1154 & 1155/Bang/2015 Page - 4 3.10 In this background I hold that the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 resorted

M/S VVD CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassessment framed vide notice dated 148 dated 27.3.2017 is bad in law. 44. Next argument of the ld. AR is that notice u/s. 148 dated 21.11.2016 was issued prior to the date of obtaining approval from the competent authority which was accorded on 23.3.2017. Therefore, the notice u/s. 148 dated 21.11.2016 issued without approval is bad in law, consequently

M/S VVD CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassessment framed vide notice dated 148 dated 27.3.2017 is bad in law. 44. Next argument of the ld. AR is that notice u/s. 148 dated 21.11.2016 was issued prior to the date of obtaining approval from the competent authority which was accorded on 23.3.2017. Therefore, the notice u/s. 148 dated 21.11.2016 issued without approval is bad in law, consequently

M/S VVD CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassessment framed vide notice dated 148 dated 27.3.2017 is bad in law. 44. Next argument of the ld. AR is that notice u/s. 148 dated 21.11.2016 was issued prior to the date of obtaining approval from the competent authority which was accorded on 23.3.2017. Therefore, the notice u/s. 148 dated 21.11.2016 issued without approval is bad in law, consequently

M/S VVD CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassessment framed vide notice dated 148 dated 27.3.2017 is bad in law. 44. Next argument of the ld. AR is that notice u/s. 148 dated 21.11.2016 was issued prior to the date of obtaining approval from the competent authority which was accorded on 23.3.2017. Therefore, the notice u/s. 148 dated 21.11.2016 issued without approval is bad in law, consequently