Forum
Read and express views
× Latest Case Laws on Income Tax by various Income Tax Appellate Tribunals in India

These are the latest case laws decided by various Income Tax Appellate Tribunals (ITAT) of India on Income Tax which have been published recently. The case laws are open for discussion and we invite expert comments from our members on its applicability and effect on relevant issues.

06-11-2019, Naresh J. Kotak, Section 16(3), 153A, Tribunal Mumbai

  • amit
  • amit's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Administrator
  • Administrator
More
4 days 8 hours ago #11350 by amit
Section - 16(3), 153A, 23(1), 132(1)
Order Date - 06-11-2019
Favouring - Assessee Partly
Court - Tribunal Mumbai
Appellant - Naresh J. Kotak
Respondent - DCIT
Justice - WASEEM AHMED AM & RAMLAL NEGI JM
Citation - 1119Taxpundit85
Appeal No. - ITA Nos. 4635-4637 & 4641/MUM/2017
Asstt. Year - 2006-2007 to 2009-10

Order

PER : WASEEM AHMED

The captioned appeals have been filed at the instance of the Assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-54, Mumbai dated 21/03/2017, (in short “Ld.CIT(A)”) arising in the matter of assessment order passed under s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as "the Act") dt. 07/03/2014 relevant to the Assessment Years ( 2006-2007 to 2009-2010).

Since, common issues are arising in all the appeals and facts being identical, we dispose of all these appeal by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.

2. In ITA No. 4641/MUM/2017 for A.Y. 2006-07, the Grounds of appeal are as follows:

1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) erred in upholding the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to complete the assessment under sec.153A r.w.s 143(3).

2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the jurisdiction of the Assessing Offi er to make an addition in proceedings u/s.153A, after having himself given a findings hat no incriminating material was found in the course of search, and that the original assessment u/s.143(3) had not abated.

3. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to make an addition on the basis of an offer made by the appellant during assessment, ignoring the fact that appellant made a conditional off r, which was not accepted by the Assessing Officer.

4. Without prejud ce the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in direc ing the Assessing Officer to adopt the ALV of property at Lonavala at Rs 60 000/ and that of flat in building called Kalpana at Rs.41,000/-. The appellant submits the ALV adopted is excessive and arbitrary.

5. The appellant submits the Assessing Officer be directed to adopt the rateable value fixed by the Municipal Corporation as the Annual Letting Value. The Appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter modify or withdraw any or all the Grounds of Appeal before or at the time of hearing of the Appeal, as they may be advised from time to time,

3. In ITA No. 4635/MUM/2017 for A.Y. 2007-08 the Grounds of appeal are as follows:

1. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) erred in upholding the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to complete the assessment under sec.153A r.w.s 143(3).

2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to make an addition in proceedings u/s.153A, after having himself given a findings that no incriminating material was found in the course of search, and that the original assessment u/s.143(3) had not abated.

3. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to make an addition on the basis of an offer made by the appellant during assessment, ignoring the fact that appellant made a conditional offer, which was not accepted by the Assessing Officer.

4. Without prejudice the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to adopt the ALV of property at Lonavala at Rs.60,000/- and that of flat in building called Kalpana at Rs.41,000/-. The appellant submits the ALV adopted is excessive and arbitrary.

5. The appellant submits the Assessing Of icer be directed to adopt the rateable value fixed by the Municipal Corporation as the Annual Letting Value. The Appellant craves leave to add to, am nd, alter modify or withdraw any or all the Grounds of Appeal before or at the time of hearing of the Appeal, as they may be advised from time to time,

4. In ITA No. 4636/MUM/2017 for A.Y. 2008-09 the Grounds of appeal are as follows:

1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) erred in upholding the ju isdiction of the Assessing Officer to complete the assessment under sec.153A r.w.s 143(3).

2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to make an addition in proceedings u/s.153A, after having himself given a findings that no incriminating material was found in the course of search, and that the original assessment u/s.143(3) had not abated.

3. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to make an addition on the basis of an of fermade by the appellant during assessment, ignoring the fact that appellant made a conditional offer, which was not accepted by the Assessing Officer.

4. Without prejudice the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred indirecting the Assessing Officer to adopt the ALV of property at Lonavala at Rs.60,000/- and that of flat in building called Kalpana at Rs.45,000/-. The appellant submits the ALV adopted is excessive and arbitrary.

5. The appellant submits the Assessing Officer be directed to adopt the rateable value fixed by the Municipal Corporation as the Annual Letting Value. The Appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter modify or withdraw any or all the Grounds of Appeal before or at the time of hearing of the Appeal, as they may be advised from time to time,

5. In ITA No. 4637/MUM/2017 for A.Y. 2009-10 the Grounds of appeal are as follows:

1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) erred in upholding the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to complete the assessment under sec.153A r.w.s 143(3).

2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to make an addition in proceedings u/s.153A, after having himself given a findings that no incriminating material was found in the course of search, and that the original assessment u/s.143(3) had not abated.

3. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to make an addition on the basis of an offer made by the appellant during assessment, ignoring the fact that appellant made a conditional offer, which was not accepted by the Assessing Officer.

4. Without prejudice the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in directing the A sessing Officer to adopt the ALV of flat in building called Kalpana at Rs.41 000/-. The appellant submits the ALV adopted is excessive and arbitrary.

5. Th appel ant submits the Assessing Officer be directed to adopt the rateable value fixed by the Municipal Corporation as the Annual Letting Value. The Appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter modify or withdraw any or all the Grounds of Appeal before or at the time of hearing of the Appeal, as they may be advised from time to time,

6. The preliminary issue to be decided in all these appeals is as to whether in respect of unabated assessments (no pending proceedings) as on the date of search, the AO could frame the search assessment u/s 153A of the Act by

Click to view and download Full Free Judgement of Naresh J. Kotak vs. DCIT

Unable to display Google Map.




Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.077 seconds

If You Appreciate What We Do Here On TaxPundit, You Should Consider:

We are thankful for your never ending support.

Latest Analysis - High Courts

Akrati Promoters And Developers vs. DCIT

Akrati Promoters And Developers vs. DCIT

Akrati Promoters And Developers vs. DCIT Read More
CIT vs. ANOOP JAIN

CIT vs. ANOOP JAIN

CIT vs. ANOOP JAIN Read More
PCIT vs. LALIT BAGAI

PCIT vs. LALIT BAGAI

PCIT vs. LALIT BAGAI  Read More
ROHIT KUMAR GUPTA vs. PCIT

ROHIT KUMAR GUPTA vs. PCIT

ROHIT KUMAR GUPTA vs. PCIT Read More
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42

Forum Features

Latest Case Laws
Latest Case Laws are instantly updated in the Forum into their respective section
Latest from CBDT
Latest Circulars, Notifications, Orders etc. from CBDT is updated in the Forum
Ask Experts
You can ask questions to the community
Support
Support queries are either replied via mail or in the Forum so that others can be benefited
Press Releases
Latest Press Notes and Press Releases are updated in the Forum
Connect with Members
You can connect with our community members by replying to their queries

Recommended Articles

 

SITE INFORMATION

All content herein is the copyright of Taxpundit. No images, text, or any other content may be, reproduced or redistributed without the express written consent of Taxpundit.

All Rights Reserved. All Content Copyright.

Newsletter

Subscribe to our newsletter and stay updated on the latest developments and special offers!

Company Master Data Since 1900. More than 1.75 Million Records. Register/Login to get FREE access. Read more
Toggle Bar