Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal / NCLT & Others
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        2019 (3) TMI 634 - AT - Income Tax

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Reassessment under s.147 and Explanation 1 upheld where assessee failed to disclose transactions were accommodation entries ITAT upheld reassessment under s.147, finding the AO's recorded reasons sufficient: the assessee failed to disclose material facts that the transactions ...
                      Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

                          Reassessment under s.147 and Explanation 1 upheld where assessee failed to disclose transactions were accommodation entries

                          ITAT upheld reassessment under s.147, finding the AO's recorded reasons sufficient: the assessee failed to disclose material facts that the transactions constituted accommodation entries. The tribunal rejected the assessee's contention that mere submission of returns, PAN, bank statements and confirmations amounted to full and true disclosure, noting Explanation 1 to s.147 supports reopening where the essential nature of the transaction was not disclosed. Reassessment validity affirmed; decided against the assessee.




                          Issues Involved:
                          1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
                          2. Validity of reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act.
                          3. Addition of Rs. 20,00,000 under Section 68 on account of share capital.
                          4. Principles of natural justice and the right to cross-examine.

                          Detailed Analysis:

                          1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal:
                          The assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 13 days, attributing the delay to the appeal papers being kept in the wrong file. An affidavit was filed, and it was argued that the delay was unintentional and not due to negligence. The Revenue opposed the condonation. The tribunal, after considering the submissions, condoned the delay, noting that the assessee would not benefit from intentionally delaying the appeal.

                          2. Validity of Reassessment Proceedings under Section 147:
                          The assessee challenged the reassessment proceedings on the grounds that all relevant facts were already before the Assessing Officer (AO) during the earlier assessment, and no fresh material had come to light. The reassessment was based on information received from the Central Circle and the statement of Shri S.K. Gupta, who admitted to providing accommodation entries. The tribunal noted that the reassessment was not solely based on S.K. Gupta's statement but also on corroborative evidence, including ledger accounts found during a survey at S.K. Gupta's premises. The tribunal cited the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court's decision in Yogendra Kumar Gupta vs. ITO, which upheld reassessment based on fresh information from a third party's premises. The tribunal concluded that the reassessment proceedings were valid as they were based on new information that came to light after the original assessment.

                          3. Addition of Rs. 20,00,000 under Section 68 on Account of Share Capital:
                          The assessee argued that the addition of Rs. 20,00,000 was unjustified as the share capital transaction had already been examined and verified in earlier assessments. The tribunal found that fresh information gathered during the survey at S.K. Gupta's premises provided a new dimension to the transaction, justifying the reassessment. The tribunal referred to the Full Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Usha International, which distinguished between a change of opinion and new factual information coming to light. The tribunal held that the AO was justified in reassessing the transaction based on new evidence, and the addition under Section 68 was upheld.

                          4. Principles of Natural Justice and the Right to Cross-Examine:
                          The assessee contended that the reassessment was invalid as they were not given the opportunity to cross-examine S.K. Gupta. The tribunal noted that the statement of S.K. Gupta was not the sole basis for reassessment and that the assessee was confronted with the corroborative evidence found during the survey. The tribunal cited the Hon’ble Apex Court's judgment in M/s. Andaman Timber Industries, which held that the absence of cross-examination does not invalidate proceedings if there is sufficient corroborative evidence. The tribunal concluded that the reassessment proceedings were valid and dismissed the assessee's plea.

                          Conclusion:
                          The tribunal upheld the validity of the reassessment proceedings and the addition of Rs. 20,00,000 under Section 68. The appeal of the assessee was dismissed in its entirety. The order was pronounced in the open court on 27.02.2019.
                          Full Summary is available for active users!
                          Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                          Topics

                          ActsIncome Tax
                          No Records Found