TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal quashes reassessment order citing jurisdictional issues and lack of compliance.</h1> <h3>Bhavmeet Singh Bhatia, C/o RRA Taxindia Versus ACIT, Circle-43 (1), New Delhi.</h3> Bhavmeet Singh Bhatia, C/o RRA Taxindia Versus ACIT, Circle-43 (1), New Delhi. - TMI Issues:1. Jurisdiction in reopening assessment under sections 147/143(3)2. Addition of cash deposit in bank account under section 683. Compliance with statutory conditions for reassessment4. Application of mind in initiating reassessment proceedingsJurisdiction in Reopening Assessment under Sections 147/143(3):The appeal challenged the jurisdiction in reopening the assessment under sections 147/143(3) for Assessment Year 2011-12. The assessee contended that the AO did not comply with statutory conditions as per sections 147 to 151. The counsel argued that the AO's assumption of jurisdiction was flawed as the return for the relevant year was filed before the initiation of reassessment proceedings. The Tribunal observed that the AO initiated reassessment proceedings based on incorrect facts without proper application of mind. Citing relevant case law, the Tribunal concluded that the reassessment order was not sustainable and should be quashed.Addition of Cash Deposit in Bank Account under Section 68:The dispute involved the addition of Rs. 12,04,700 on account of cash deposit in the assessee's bank account under section 68. The assessee challenged this addition on legal and factual grounds. The Tribunal noted the AO's reliance on the cash deposit and the absence of the income tax return for the relevant year. However, the Tribunal found that the initiation of reassessment proceedings lacked proper verification and application of mind. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was unsustainable and ordered it to be quashed.Compliance with Statutory Conditions for Reassessment:The assessee raised concerns about the compliance with statutory conditions for reassessment under sections 147 to 151. The counsel argued that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without proper application of mind and based on incorrect facts. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's contentions, emphasizing the importance of complying with statutory requirements before initiating reassessment proceedings. Citing relevant judgments, the Tribunal concluded that the reassessment order was not sustainable due to the lack of proper application of mind by the AO.Application of Mind in Initiating Reassessment Proceedings:The issue of the AO's application of mind in initiating reassessment proceedings was crucial in this case. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the reasons recorded by the AO, indicating a lack of proper verification and incomplete information. Drawing parallels with similar cases and legal precedents, the Tribunal held that the AO's initiation of reassessment proceedings without due diligence amounted to an omission in complying with mandatory provisions. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the reassessment order, emphasizing the necessity of proper application of mind and verification of facts before initiating such proceedings.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, quashing the impugned reassessment order under sections 147/143(3) for Assessment Year 2011-12 due to jurisdictional issues, lack of compliance with statutory conditions, and inadequate application of mind by the AO. The decision highlighted the importance of proper verification and adherence to legal requirements in reassessment proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
