Amita Jain vs ITO WARD-36(1)

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Amita Jain, has raised several grounds of appeal against the orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2013-14. The assessment was framed by the Assessing Officer under Sections 147 and 144 of the Act. The key issue pertains to the validity of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act, dated 29.07.2022, which the assessee claims is barred by limitation as per the decision in Union of India Vs Rajeev Bansal. The assessee also argues that the notice was invalid as it lacked a Document Identification Number (DIN). Additionally, the assessee disputes the treatment of Long-Term Capital Gain (LTCG) and the addition based on third-party statements without opportunity for cross-examination.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Validity of notice issued under Section 148
• 2. Invalidity of notice for lacking DIN
• 3. Quashing of reassessment proceedings
• 4. Treatment of LTCG as income under Section 68
• 5. Addition based on third-party statements

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• DCIT, Central Circle-1, New Delhi vs. Udai Shanker Awasthi

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2011-12 to 2018-19Dismissed

• Jayantilal Jesaram Purohit vs DCIT

• ITO vs. Aggarwal Alloy Steels Pvt Ltd.

  Delhi Bench 'E' benchAY 2013-14Allowed

• Revanth Reddy Anumala vs. The ACIT

  Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench benchAY 2017-2018Allowed

• RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA VS. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14

• Jaideep Chopra Vs ITO Ward-44(6)

  Delhi Bench ‘G’, New Delhi benchAY 2013-14Allowed