Case Laws Analysis
REFERRED CIT v. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemicals Ltd. 2018 TaxPub(DT) 4342 (MP-HC)
REFERRED Gorika Investment & Exports (P) Ltd. v. ITO 2018 TaxPub(DT) 3668 (Del-Trib)
REFERRED Tara Alloys Ltd. v. ITO 2018 TaxPub(DT) 2267 (Del-Trib)
REFERRED Pr. CIT v. N.C. Cables Ltd. 2017 TaxPub(DT) 0264 (Del-HC)
REFERRED Prem Chand Shaw (Jaiswal) v. Asstt. CIT & Anr. 2016 TaxPub(DT) 1688 (Cal-HC)
REFERRED Lalita Ashwin Jain v. ITO 2014 TaxPub(DT) 1703 (Guj-HC)
REFERRED Asstt. CIT v. Resham Petrotech Ltd. 2012 TaxPub(DT) 2154 (Ahd-Trib)
REFERRED CIT v. SPLs Siddhartha Ltd. 2012 TaxPub(DT) 1806 (Del-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. Bhawani Oil Mills (P) Ltd. 2011 TaxPub(DT) 0559 (Raj-HC)
REFERRED Kanubhai M. Patel (HUF) v. Hiren Bhatt or His Successors to Office & Ors. 2011 TaxPub(DT) 0342 (Guj-HC)
REFERRED Chand Parkash Vij v. CIT 2009 TaxPub(DT) 1165 (P&H-HC)
REFERRED Indus Valley Promoters Ltd. v. CIT 2008 TaxPub(DT) 1857 (Del-HC)
REFERRED Fathudhinga Rice Mills V. CIT 2008 TaxPub(DT) 0436 (P&H-HC)
REFERRED Vidya Sagar v. ITO & Anr. 2008 TaxPub(DT) 0328 (P&H-HC)
REFERRED Maru Ram Makhan Lal v. CIT 2008 TaxPub(DT) 0084 (P&H-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. K. Chinnathamban 2007 TaxPub(DT) 1400 (SC)
REFERRED CIT v. P. Mohanakala 2007 TaxPub(DT) 1237 (SC)
REFERRED Shiv Rice & General Mills v. CIT 2007 TaxPub(DT) 0675 (P&H-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. Uttam Chand Nahar 2007 TaxPub(DT) 0285 (Raj-HC)
REFERRED Bhartesh Jain v. Deputy CIT 2006 TaxPub(DT) 1127 (Del-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. Lunar Diamonds Ltd. 2006 TaxPub(DT) 0275 (Del-HC)
REFERRED Smt. N. Kaasivisalam v. Assistant CIT 2005 TaxPub(DT) 0924 (Chen-Trib)
REFERRED Gkn Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer & Ors. 2003 TaxPub(DT) 0734 (SC)
REFERRED Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer & Ors. 1999 TaxPub(DT) 0348 (SC)
REFERRED CIT v. Smt. P.K. Noorjahan 1999 TaxPub(DT) 0080 (SC)
REFERRED Sumati Dayal v. CIT 1995 TaxPub(DT) 1173 (SC)
REFERRED CIT v. Biju Patnaik 1986 TaxPub(DT) 1553 (SC)
REFERRED CIT v. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. 1986 TaxPub(DT) 1425 (SC)
REFERRED CIT v. Bharat Engineering & Construction Co. 1972 TaxPub(DT) 0297 (SC)
REFERRED CIT v. Deviprasad Khandelwal & Co. Ltd. 1971 TaxPub(DT) 0124 (Bom-HC)
REFERRED K.S. Kannan Kunhi v. CIT 1969 TaxPub(DT) 0201 (Ker-HC)
REFERRED Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT 1963 TaxPub(DT) 0420 (SC)
REFERRED Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT 1956 TaxPub(DT) 0171 (SC)
 
The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 3589 (Jp-Trib)

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Section 147 Section 151

Once reasons recorded for reopening of assessment were found to be having a direct nexus with information and formation of belief that income assessable to tax had escaped assessment, then Pr. CIT was not required to give separate reasons for his satisfaction.

Reassessment - Validity - Assessee pleading mechanical approval granted by Pr. CIT - Sanction granted by Pr. CIT was based on the reasons recorded by AO and not merely on proposal sent by AO

Assessee an individual not filed return of income under section 139. AO received information from AIR/Investigation which revealed the fact that assessee having made cash deposit of Rs. 9 lakhs in his savings bank account which was more than threshold limit of income assessable to tax. Accordingly, AO issued notice under section 148 after recording the reasons which were approved by competent authority under section 151. Assessee challenged this by pleading that mechanical approval was granted by Pr. CIT. Held: It was not a simple case of information regarding deposit of cash in the bank account but investigation wing had conducted proper enquiry on the source of deposit and only after response/reply of assessee was considered, said information was sent to AO for taking appropriate action. Therefore, AO was having tangible material to form a belief that income assessable to tax has escaped assessment. AO sent the proposal in performa for approval/sanction of Pr. CIT which contained details, including reasons recorded by AO and once reasons recorded by AO were found to be having a direct nexus with information and formation of belief that income assessable to tax had escaped assessment, then Pr. CIT was not required to give separate reasons for his satisfaction. Accordingly, there was no merit in assessee's plea.

REFERRED :

FAVOUR : Against the assessee.

A.Y. : 2009-10


INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Section 68

SUBSCRIBE TaxPublishers.inSUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT