Topic
Income tax reassessment under the Income Tax Act, 1961 allows the tax department to reopen completed assessments if it has reason to believe income has been escaped, subject to strict procedural conditions under Sections 147 to 151.
The ITAT ruled that a reassessment order issued after a court-ordered stay is lifted falls outside the two-year limitation of Section 153(2), rendering the addition of Rs 18.16 crore invalid. This protects taxpayers from belated reassessments once a stay is removed.
The ITAT Delhi set aside a Rs. 35 lakh addition for unexplained cash deposits during demonetization because the reassessment under Section 147 lacked mandatory reasons and failed to secure prior approval under Section 151. Only Rs. 3 lakh was upheld after scrutiny, reinforcing that procedural compliance is non-negotiable in reassessments - a critical safeguard for taxpayers facing post-demonetization scrutiny.
ITAT Delhi quashed reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, ruling that additions beyond the recorded reasons for reopening are invalid. The tribunal relied on the precedent that jurisdictional validity collapses if the foundational reason for reassessment fails, reinforcing strict adherence to jurisdictional limits in tax proceedings.
The ITAT Agra has ruled that reassessment under Section 147 is void if the Assessing Officer relies on cash transaction data without verifying the assessee’s explanation or making any actual addition to income. This establishes that mere suspicion or unverified data cannot sustain jurisdictional belief - a critical safeguard for small traders and cash-based businesses facing arbitrary reassessments.
ITAT Kolkata rules that when an assessee fails to prove the existence of suppliers, delivery, or transactional genuineness, the entire purchase amount is taxable as unexplained expenditure under Section 69C. The ruling underscores the burden of proof on taxpayers to substantiate transactions, even with banking evidence, to avoid full disallowance.
ITAT Mumbai rules that issuing two reassessment orders under Section 147 for the same transaction in a single assessment year is legally impermissible. The second order renders the first infructuous, setting a precedent against procedural duplication in tax reassessment proceedings.
ITAT Ahmedabad quashed reassessment proceedings under Section 147 IT Act, ruling that unverified investigation reports without a live nexus to the assessee’s transactions fail to constitute valid tangible material. The tribunal emphasized that reopening assessments based on mere suspicion or third-party reports violates natural justice and the statutory threshold for escapement.
ITAT Agra nullified a reassessment under Section 147 after finding the Section 151 approval was a rubber-stamp endorsement without application of mind, reinforcing that procedural compliance is jurisdictional, not formalistic. This ruling impacts all reassessment proceedings where approvals are boilerplate, requiring tax officers to demonstrate genuine scrutiny before reopening assessments.
ITAT Delhi quashes reassessment under Section 147/144 of the Income Tax Act for failure to serve notice at the assessee's correct address, reinforcing that procedural compliance is mandatory for jurisdiction. The ruling underscores that ex-parte orders without proper notice violate principles of natural justice and are void ab initio.
ITAT Delhi rules that a notice under Section 148 issued to a deceased assessee is void from the outset, and legal heirs bear no duty to inform the tax department of the death. The tribunal quashed the assessment order, reinforcing that jurisdictional defects cannot be cured by subsequent compliance from legal representatives.
ITAT Delhi quashes reassessment where notice under Section 148A(b) cited one set of entities, but addition was made on unrelated purchases. Key precedent on procedural fairness.
Andhra Pradesh High Court rules that jurisdictional assessing officers lack authority to issue notices under Section 147 IT Act outside the faceless assessment mechanism prescribed under Section 144B read with Section 151A.