Just a moment...

Top
Help
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
×

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
  • 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
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    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>Reassessments for 2012-13 and 2013-14 Quashed Due to Insufficient Evidence; ITAT Delhi Allows Appeals in ITA Nos. 3154 & 3155/Del/2023.</h1> <h3>Gajender Kumar, S/o. Harbans Lal Versus ITO, Ward-1 (5), Gurgaon</h3> The ITAT Delhi quashed the reassessments for the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14, allowing the assessee's appeals in ITA Nos. 3154 & ... Validity of assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 - reasons to believe or reason to suspect - cash deposits unexplained - HELD THAT:- AO did not have any material with him much less tangible material to form a belief that income of the assessee had escaped assessment in respect of cash deposits made in Nainital Bank Account. Hence, reopening of assessment deserved to be quashed on this count itself. Even though no return of income has been filed by the assessee still the fact of cash deposits made in the bank account could merely reflect “reason to suspect” and cannot be by any stretch of imagination directly become “reason to believe” for the AO. The assessee having not filed his return of income regularly and having made cash deposit in the bank account which is beyond the maximum amount not chargeable to tax, may be subjected to fall within ambit of “reason to suspect”. But such suspicion of the AO should have to be converted into “reason to believe” pursuant to AO making preliminary enquiries by way of issuance of notice u/s 142(1) to the assessee calling for return of income or calling for explanation for cash deposit prior to issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act. This procedure was admittedly not followed by the AO in the instant case. Hence, the fact of cash deposits made by the assessee, in our considered opinion, would only result in “reason to suspect” and not “reason to believe”. It is trite law that no assessment could be reopened merely on the basis of “reason to suspect”. Assessee appeal allowed. The judgment issued by the Appellate Tribunal in ITAT Delhi pertains to appeals in ITA Nos. 3154 & 3155/Del/2023 for the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14. The core legal issue presented in this case is the challenge to the validity of the assumption of jurisdiction under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal considered the sufficiency of reasons for reopening the assessment and whether there was a valid basis for the belief that income had escaped assessment.The Tribunal noted that for the assessment year 2012-13, the assessee had not filed a return of income, and the Assessing Officer (AO) relied on information regarding cash deposits in the Nainital Bank Ltd to reopen the assessment. However, it was found that the actual cash deposit was lower than initially mentioned by the AO. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of preliminary material for forming a belief that income had escaped assessment. The Tribunal held that the AO did not have sufficient tangible material to support the belief that income had escaped assessment, as the preliminary enquiry with the bank was not conducted before recording the reasons for reopening the assessment.The Tribunal referred to a decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in a similar case where it was held that reopening notice based solely on suspicion without detailed examination was not valid. The Tribunal distinguished between 'reason to suspect' and 'reason to believe,' emphasizing that mere cash deposits without further investigation do not constitute a valid reason to believe income has escaped assessment. The Tribunal concluded that the reassessment for the assessment year 2012-13 should be quashed on this technical ground.The Tribunal applied the same reasoning to the assessment year 2013-14, finding the facts to be identical to the previous year. Therefore, both appeals of the assessee were allowed based on the quashing of the reassessment for the assessment year 2012-13.In summary, the Tribunal held that the reassessment was invalid due to the lack of sufficient preliminary material to support the belief that income had escaped assessment, emphasizing the distinction between suspicion and belief. The Tribunal's decision to quash the reassessment for the assessment year 2012-13 was extended to the assessment year 2013-14, resulting in the allowance of both appeals by the assessee.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found