Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.27 seconds)Section 148 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 144 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Sh. Paramjit Singh (Prop.) Of, ... vs The Income Tax Officer,, Kapurthala on 27 March, 2018
Provided that where an assessment under
subsection (3) of section 143 or this section has been
7 ITA No. 227/Asr/2019 (A.Y. 2010-11)
Sh. Karamjit Singh Rai Vs. ITO
made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall be
taken under this section after the expiry of four years from
the end of the relevant assessment year, unless any
income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for
such assessment year by reason of the failure on the part
of the assessee to make a return under section 139 or in
response to a notice issued under sub section (1) of section
142 or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all
material facts necessary for his assessment for that
assessment year.
Sahil Mahajan, Pathankot vs The Income Tax Officer,, Pathankot on 28 February, 2019
The co-ordinate Bench in Sahil Mahajan Vs ITO Wrad 6(3)
Pathankot (supra) has clearly held that the competent authority is
required to indicate some link or nexus while recording reasons for
belief that the consideration amount of property acquired is chargeable
to tax and has escaped the assessment, which according to our
considered view, in the instant case is missing and the proceedings
u/s 147 of the Act itself are vague, hence in any sense cannot survive
and therefore we do not have any hesitation to held that the Ld.
CIT(A) was absolutely unjustified in upholding the reopening of the
assessment u/s 147 of the Act, without appreciating the facts and
circumstances of the case, explanation submitted and evidences
placed on record judiciously. Hence on this ground itself, the
assessment proceeding/order is liable to be quashed. Consequently
stands quashed.
Section 153 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 142 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 143 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Sarda Energy And Minerals Ltd. 23 ... on 4 July, 2019
10. In the present case, the first and second parts of the reasons
recorded by the AO, are only information and the third part of the so-
called reasons is mere reason. From the reasons recorded, it nowhere
reflects that as to what information and corroborative
materials/records with reference to above issue have been
independently examined and verified by the AO. There is nothing to
suggest that the Assessing officer has ever applied his own mind and
independently arrived at a belief that on the basis of the material
which he had before him, income had escaped assessment and made
any exercise to find out the real controversy and/or material to
substantiate the initiation of process u/s 147 of the Act and ever
incorporated the material before re-opening the assessment and
satisfied himself before issuing the notice u/s 148 of the Act. It is
clear that the Assessing Officer failed to make any exercise for
reopening of the case independently and with corroborative material.
The jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Pramjit Kaur
9 ITA No. 227/Asr/2019 (A.Y. 2010-11)
Sh. Karamjit Singh Rai Vs. ITO
(supra) has held that the Assessing Officer has to act on the basis of
"reasons to believe" and not on "reasons to suspect". The
decisions relied upon by the revenue department are factually
dissimilar, whereas the facts of the instant case are similar and
identical to the facts of decision rendered by the jurisdictional High
Court in the aforesaid case. As in the instant case, the initiations of
proceedings u/s 147 of the Act are based upon no evidence and/or un-
corroborative material. The Assessing Officer further failed to establish
the nexus that the investment made by the AO represented assessee's
income.