Neena Bihani Vs. ITO Ward 49(2)

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Neena Bihani, filed a return of income declaring a total income of ₹2,35,680/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) received information that the assessee had purchased shares of Jackson Investment Ltd. worth ₹1,30,17,199/-, and the source of these investments remained unexplained. Consequently, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 28.07.2022, following the reopening of the assessment under section 147 of the Act. The assessee filed a return of income on 28.09.2021 and requested the AO to treat it as a return filed in response to Section 148 of the Act. A notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 25.01.2023 was issued, requesting the assessee to furnish details of the investment made in Jackson Investment Ltd. The AO noted that the assessee had obtained bogus accommodation entries in the form of Long-Term Capital Gain/Loss and Short-Term Capital Gain/Loss. The assessee replied to the notice, but the AO added ₹1,30,17,199/- as bogus Long Term Capital Gain to the assessee's income due to the lack of documentary evidence to establish the purchase and sale of shares.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Validity of reopening the assessment under section 148 of the Act

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Similar Judgements

• Anju Kesarwani Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2014-15Allowed

• Mahak Doshi, L/H of Aditya Doshi vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Kolkata

  SMC Bench, Kolkata benchAY 2011-12Allowed

• Arvind Bhaguji Kangane Vs DCIT, Circle – 27(1), Mumbai

  Mumbai benchAY 2016-2017Allowed

• Sterling Finvst Private ltd. Vs. DCIT, Circle-5(1)

  Kolkata benchAY 2014-15Allowed

• Income Tax Officer, Ward -12(1) Vs. Vasa Commercial Pvt. ltd.

  Kolkata benchAY 2015-16Dismissed

• Mr. Jay Hansraj Chheda Vs. Income Tax Officer