Pranav Prakashchandra Kansara Vs. ITO

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee had filed his return of income for Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2013-14 on 28.01.2014 declaring total income of Rs.3,38,388/-. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer (AO) received information that the assessee is a Director in M/s. Aanal Aluminium Pvt Ltd. with a shareholding of 38.35%. The company had given a loan to the assessee, resulting in a debit balance of Rs. 30,80,796/- as on 31.03.2013. The AO reopened the case and completed the assessment on 27.03.2022 at a total income of Rs. 34,19,184/- with an addition of Rs.30,80,796/- as deemed dividend. The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)), which was dismissed. The assessee then filed a second appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate the fact that the AO erred in law by proceeding to complete the assessment without proper service of notice u/s. 148.
• 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in law and on facts by not appreciating the fact that the assessee was prevented by circumstances beyond his control from complying with the notices issued by the AO.
• 3. Whether the CIT(A) erred in law and on facts by not appreciating the fact that the AO has passed the assessment order without issuing the notice u/s 143(2) of the IT Act, which is mandatory as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT Vs Weedo Ventures Pvt. Ltd.
• 4. Whether the CIT(A) erred in law and on facts by not considering the submissions made by the assessee in reply dated 22-3-2022 and the video conference.
• 5. Whether the reassessment based on the audit objection is invalid because there is a change of opinion as decided by the Gujarat High Court in Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd. V. ACIT.
• 6. Whether the CIT(A) erred in law and on facts that the AO recorded reasons for reopening the assessment as per the draft reasons provided by ITO Ward 1(1)(1) Ahmedabad.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• ITA No.264/Ahd/2024

  Ahmedabad bench

• Premlata Santosh Kumar Maheshwari vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 19(2)(4), Mumbai

  Mumbai bench

• Bhagat Marketing Pvt. Ltd. vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax

  Ahmedabad bench

• Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(2)(1), Ahmedabad Vs. Kantilal Bechardas Patel, thru LH Shri Dineshkumar Kantilal Patel

  Ahmedabad bench

• Assotech Moonshine Urban Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1), New Delhi

  Delhi bench

• ITO vs. Khushal Madhavlal Darji

  Ahmedabad bench