Rahul Rastogi vs. ACIT

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

Rahul Rastogi, the assessee, filed a return declaring an income of Rs.18,24,660/- for the assessment year 2017-18. The case was selected for reopening, and a notice for reopening was issued on 31.03.2021. The reopening was based on an alleged bogus capital gain of Rs.1,22,88,973/- due to antedated forged contract notes through sub-brokers Karnam Services Pvt. Ltd. The assessee claimed that only Rs.86,94,779/- was earned as LTCG. The case involved transactions in Eicher Motors’s shares. The reopening was challenged on several jurisdictional grounds, including the validity of the notice and reasons for reopening.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Validity of the reopening notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
• 2. Whether the reopening should have been conducted under section 153C instead of section 147/148.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Anju Kesarwani Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2014-15Allowed

• NIKITA KAPOOR Vs ITO, NFAC, DELHI / ITO, WARD 54(1), NEW DELHI

• Susanta Mallick vs. DCIT, Circle 11(1), Kolkata

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2015-2016Allowed

• Pooja Babulal Jain Vs ITO, Ward-23(2)(6), Mumbai

• Neena Bihani Vs. ITO Ward 49(2)

  Kolkata benchAY 2015-16Allowed

• Mansoor Baitha Vs Income Tax Officer

  Delhi Bench ‘SMC’, New Delhi benchAY 2017-18Allowed