ACIT v. Sanjay Pratap Singh - Taxpublishers.in

Case Laws Analysis
REFERRED Pr. CIT v. Meenakshi Overseas (P.) Ltd. 2017 TaxPub(DT) 1791 (Del-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 2010 TaxPub(DT) 1335 (SC)

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2024 TaxPub(DT) 1761 (Del-Trib) IN THE ITAT DELHI BENCH KUL BHARAT, J.M. & M. BALAGANESH, A.M. ACIT v. Sanjay Pratap Singh ITA No. 4491 and 4492/Del/2019 4 April, 2024 Assessee by: R. K. Singhal, CA Revenue by: Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR ORDER *M. Balaganesh, A. M.* These are the appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos.4491/Del/2019 and 4492/Del/2019 for 2009-10, arise out of the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-28, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as learned Commissioner (Appeals), in short) dated 25-3-2019 against the order of assessment passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) dated 29-6-2017 and order dated 18-3-2019 against the order of assessment passed under section 143(3) dated 29-12-2016 by the learned ACIT, Circle-65(1), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as learned assessing officer). 2. Let us take up the quantum appeal first in ITA No. 4491/Del/2019 for assessment year 2009-10. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has grossly erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee and in quashing the assessment under section 147 read with section 143(3) by holding that the notice under section 148 of the Act is invalid without going into the merits of the case. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has grossly erred in quashing the assessment proceedings under section 147 read with section 143(3) by holding that the assessing officer was not having any information/material in his possession on the basis of which a belief about escapement of income could be formed. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2024 TaxPub(DT) 1761 (Del-Trib)

IN THE ITAT DELHI BENCH

KUL BHARAT, J.M. & M. BALAGANESH, A.M.

ACIT v. Sanjay Pratap Singh

ITA No. 4491 and 4492/Del/2019

4 April, 2024

Assessee by: R. K. Singhal, CA

Revenue by: Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR

ORDER

M. Balaganesh, A. M.

These are the appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos.4491/Del/2019 and 4492/Del/2019 for 2009-10, arise out of the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-28, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as learned Commissioner (Appeals), in short) dated 25-3-2019 against the order of assessment passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) dated 29-6-2017 and order dated 18-3-2019 against the order of assessment passed under section 143(3) dated 29-12-2016 by the learned ACIT, Circle-65(1), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as learned assessing officer).

2. Let us take up the quantum appeal first in ITA No. 4491/Del/2019 for assessment year 2009-10. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has grossly erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee and in quashing the assessment under section 147 read with section 143(3) by holding that the notice under section 148 of the Act is invalid without going into the merits of the case.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has grossly erred in quashing the assessment proceedings under section 147 read with section 143(3) by holding that the assessing officer was not having any information/material in his possession on the basis of which a belief about escapement of income could be formed.