- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
ITAT quashes assessment order lacking information and verification
ITAT quashes assessment order lacking information and verification
The tribunal noted the assessing officer initiated the proceedings without applying his mind
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has quashed the assessment order stating that it neither provided complete details nor was authenticated.
The assessee, Bhavmeet Singh Bhatia, submitted before the tribunal that the assumption of the jurisdiction in reopening the impugned assessment order was bad in law. The assessing officer (AO) had not complied with the statutory conditions as stipulated in the Income Tax Act, 1961.
He contended that in the proforma for obtaining the approval of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, the AO noted that no return was filed by the assessee. The reasons were recorded in March 2018, whereas the assessee filed his Income Tax Return (ITR) for the Assessment Year 2011-2012, which was much earlier.
This meant that the initiation of reassessment proceedings was done without proper scrutiny. Thus, the sole premise for initiating the reassessment proceedings was wrong and baseless.
The assessee noted that the AO said the assessee had not filed his ITR for the Assessment Year 2011-2012, whereas the copy of the return was available on pages 1-5 of the assessee's paper book, revealing it was filed in March 2012.
The single judge bench of C M Garg (judicial member) viewed that the AO initiated the reassessment proceedings and issued a notice on incorrect facts without applying his mind. It was done without complying with the mandatory requirements of the IT Act.