Case LawHigh Court › Itxa/3373/2010 Of The Commissioner Of In...

Itxa/3373/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -3 Mumbai v. Cifco Properties Pvt. Ltd

High Court 22 Jul 2011 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/3373/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -3 Mumbai v. Cifco Properties Pvt. Ltd
Date of order
22 Jul 2011
Assessment year(s)
1999-2000
Outcome
Allowed

Case summary

In Itxa/3373/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -3 Mumbai v. Cifco Properties Pvt. Ltd, the High Court (2011) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Issue: DATED : 22ND JULY, 2011 P.C. :- 1.Whether the ITAT was justified in holding that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the assessing officer for reopening of the assessment for AY 1999-2000 was bad in law, is the question raised in this appeal.

Decision: The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.3373 OF 2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Mumbai ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. Cifco Properties Pvt. Ltd. ..Respondent. Ms. Anamika Malhotra for the appellant.Mr. Sameer G. Dalal for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATED : 22ND JULY, 2011 P.C. :- 1.Whether the ITAT was justified in holding that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the assessing officer for reopening of the assessment for AY 1999-2000 was bad in law, is the question raised in this appeal. 2.In the present case, in the original assessment order, the assessing officer had partially allowed the expenses claimed by the assessee. By reopening the assessment beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, the assessing officer seeks to disallow the expenditure which was allowed in the original assessment. 3.The ITAT in para 18 of its order has recorded finding of fact that there was no new information or material coming into the possession of the assessing officer after the completion of the original assessment wherein the expenditure was allowed. In these circumstances, the reopening of the assessment beyond the period of four years being merely a change of opinion, it cannot be said that there was any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the purpose of assessment which is a mandatory requirement for reopening of the assessment beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. 4.In this view of the matter, we see no merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (A.A. SAYED, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ Defend a reassessment (Sec 148) notice → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan