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.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
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
  • 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
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
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
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
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

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        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

        <h1>Assessment Reopening Invalid: Lack of Valid Reasons and Mechanical Approval</h1> The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment under section 147 was invalid due to the lack of valid reasons to believe income had escaped ... Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Addition of unexplained cash-credit in terms of sec.68 - as argued approval granted by Addl. CIT u/s 151(2) was given in a mechanical manner without application of mind - HELD THAT:- Addl. CIT has given the approval under a wrong section i.e. section 147(b) of the Act, whereas, the said section 147(b) stood omitted from Income Tax Act w.e.f. 01.04.1989. That the approval was given by the Addl. CIT under non-existent section, in a mechanical manner, without application of mind and hence, in the absence of valid approval as mandated by law u/s 151, the reopening of the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Act is bad in law and without jurisdiction and hence is liable to be quashed. As per the provisions of section 147 of the Act, the Assessing Officer (in short ‘AO’) is authorized to reopen the assessment proceedings, if he has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The courts of law have time and again held that such a reason to believe that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment should be based on some tangible material which comes to the knowledge of the AO. An assessment cannot be reopened under section 147 of the Act on the basis of mere suspicion. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, as discussed in earlier paras of this order, has placed reliance on the reasons recorded by the AO for formation of belief that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment to submit that the same are not valid reasons. As approval granted by the Addl. CIT reveals that the Assessing Officer had mentioned the relevant section as ‘147(b)’ which admittedly has been omitted from the Statute w.e.f. 01.04.89 and further without application of mind to the contents of the aforesaid proposal, the Ld. Addl. CIT granted approval in a mechanical manner by saying ‘Yes’, even without application of mind that the approval has been sought under wrong section. The aforesaid contents of the approval clearly shows that the approval has been granted by the Addl. CIT in a mechanical manner without application of mind. In the case of Omkam Developers Ltd. [2021 (5) TMI 414 - ITAT DELHI] the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal while relying upon the decision in the case of PCIT Vs NC Cable Ltd [2017 (1) TMI 1036 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has held that mere mentioning ‘Yes’ for approval without any evidence of application of mind amounts to mechanical approval by CIT. Under the similar circumstances, wherein, the section for invoking reassessment has been recorded as section 147(b), the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal observed that this showed that the Assessing Officer had filled proforma in a mechanical manner and the Ld. CIT(A) has also approved the same mechanically. Since the approval in this case was granted in a mechanical manner without application of mind by the Ld. Addl. CIT, therefore, the same does not constitute a valid approval u/s 151 of the Act and hence, the assessment of jurisdiction to reopen the assessment by the Assessing Officer on the basis of invalid approval was bad in law. - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues Involved:1. Ex-parte order by CIT(A).2. Legality of notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.3. Addition of Rs. 2,50,50,000/- as unexplained cash-credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.4. Validity of reopening of assessment under section 147 read with section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Ex-parte Order by CIT(A):The assessee contended that the CIT(A) erred in passing the order ex-parte. However, this issue was not the primary focus during the hearing.2. Legality of Notice Issued under Section 148:The assessee argued that the notice issued under section 148 was bad in law, and consequently, the reassessment order was illegal. The primary contention was that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer (AO) did not constitute valid reasons to believe that any income had escaped assessment. The AO had reopened the assessment based on the observation of a huge share premium during the assessment proceedings for AY 2012-13. The assessee had clarified that no fresh share premium was received during that year, and the premium amount had been constant since 31.03.2009. The AO's belief that income had escaped assessment was based on mere suspicion without any tangible material.3. Addition of Rs. 2,50,50,000/- as Unexplained Cash-Credit:The CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs. 2,50,50,000/- as unexplained cash-credit under section 68. The assessee contended that this addition was unjustified and needed to be deleted. However, this issue was not the primary focus during the hearing.4. Validity of Reopening of Assessment under Section 147/148:The primary issue discussed was the validity of the reopening of the assessment under section 147 read with section 148. The assessee argued that the AO did not have any reliable information or tangible material to form the belief that income had escaped assessment. The reopening was based on mere suspicion regarding the share premium received during FY 2008-09. The AO's reasons for reopening the assessment were found to be based on a wild suspicion without any direct nexus or live link between the material and the formation of the belief regarding escapement of income. The Tribunal emphasized that the reasons to believe must be based on some tangible material and not on mere suspicion, gossip, or rumor.The Tribunal also examined the approval granted by the Addl. CIT under section 151(2). It was noted that the approval was given mechanically without application of mind, as the Addl. CIT approved the reopening under a non-existent section (section 147(b)), which had been omitted from the statute w.e.f. 01.04.1989. The approval merely stated 'Yes' without any written satisfaction showing the application of mind. This mechanical approval rendered the reopening of the assessment invalid.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the reopening of the assessment was bad in law due to the lack of valid reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment and the mechanical approval by the Addl. CIT. Consequently, the assessment order framed under section 147 was quashed, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found