Kuldip Kumar Goel vs. ACIT (1)(1)

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The appellant, Kuldip Kumar Goel, an individual, filed an original Income Tax Return for A.Y. 2012-13 declaring income of Rs. 30,85,160/-. The assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was completed on 17.03.2015 by accepting the return income. Subsequently, the case was reopened for the reason that appellant has sold immovable property for consideration of Rs. 1,91,00,000/- during financial year 2011-12. The assessment u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act was completed after making addition of Rs. 44,05,518/-. The said addition was made on account of disallowance of cost of improvement claimed by the appellant.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Validity of reassessment proceedings under section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
• 2. Noncompliance of Supreme Court decision in G. K. N. Driveshafts case.
• 3. Jurisdictional error in assuming the appellant is a non-PAN case.
• 4. Failure to serve notice u/s 148 within six years from the end of the AY.
• 5. Reassessment proceeding initiated beyond four years from the end of the relevant AY without a categorical finding of non-disclosure.
• 6. Whether the reassessment proceedings are a mere change of opinion.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Revenue.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Dilip Mohandas Devani vs. Income Tax Officer

  Ahmedabad bench

• Prem Prakash vs. Income Tax Officer

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2017-18Partly Allowed

• ACIT, Circle 28 (1) vs. Metoropol Corporation India

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2017-18Partly Allowed

• Mr. Nateshan Sampath vs. DCIT

  C’’ Bench: Bangalore benchAY 2018-19Allowed

• Mr. Anil Kapoor vs. ITO, Ward 5(1)(1)

  F Bench, Delhi benchAY 2015-16Allowed

• Dipa Prakashkumar Velani vs. Assessment Unit through Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Bhavnagar

  Ahmedabad bench