BIMLAKUMARI LAJPATRAJ HURRA Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER
Finin2min Judgment Intelligence is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal, tax, accounting, investment or other professional advice and is not a substitute for advice on the user's specific facts. The Finin2min summary, Q&A, reliance profile, fact-match indicators, comparisons and practical takeaways are editorial analysis and are not part of the Court/Tribunal judgment. Before citing, filing, advising or acting on a case, read the complete official judgment/order, verify the cause title, case number, coram, date, applicable statutory text and jurisdiction, and check subsequent appellate history, review/SLP status and later amendments. A similar fact pattern does not guarantee the same outcome. No advocate-client, CA-client or other professional relationship is created by use of this page.
Case in 2 minutes
Old-scheme reopening where capital gains had already been disclosed: change of opinion/incorrect factual premise.
Result: Quashed / set aside. The controlling text is the reasoning and operative order in the packaged judgment, not this editorial summary.
Case snapshot
Sections / provisions: See packaged judgment
Questions before the Court / Tribunal
- Old-scheme reopening where capital gains had already been disclosed: change of opinion/incorrect factual premise.
- What factual, statutory and procedural conditions control the relief?
- How does the operative order apply to the parties and the challenged proceeding?
Material facts and procedural background
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16884 of 2018 ========================================================== BIMLAKUMARI LAJPATRAJ HURRA Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER, ========================================================== Appearance: DARSHAN R PATEL(8486) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR. KARAN SANGHANI WITH MRS KALPANAK RAVAL(1046) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
1.2 Heard learned advocate Mr. Darshan Patel for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Karan Sanghani for the respondent-Income Tax Authority.
2. The challenge in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against notice dated 30.3.2018 issued by the assessing officer against the petitioner under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of the Assessment Year 2011-2012 seeking to reopen the assessment of the petitioner for the year under consideration. It
3. The return of income came to be filed by the petitioner assessee in respect of the Assessment Year 2011-2012 on 20.7.2011. In the return of income, the gross total income to the tune of Rs. 3,95,497/- and net income to the tune of Rs. 41,500/- were declared after showing the relevant calculations of income and other relevant details.
3.1 The said return of income came to be processed by the competent authority. The ground for seeking to reopen the assessment as available from the reasons for re-opening of the assessment supplied to the petitioner on 30.08.2018 reads as under,
Appellant / assessee submissions
In the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the request and consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the petition was taken up for final consideration.
1.1 Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Karan Sanghani waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent.
1.2 Heard learned advocate Mr. Darshan Patel for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Karan Sanghani for the respondent-Income Tax Authority.
4. While learned advocate for the petitioner submitted with reference
Revenue / respondent submissions
The packaged judgment does not separately label the respondent's submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full order.
Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning
The reasoning is integrated into the packaged record. Read it with the facts, statutory text and operative directions; this editorial article does not invent missing reasons.
Operative decision and relief
6.2 As a result of the above discussion, the impugned notice deserves to be set aside.
6.3 Accordingly, the notice dated 30.03.2018 seeking to reopen the assessment of the petitioner in respect of Assessment Year 2011-2012 is hereby set aside.
7. The petition stands allowed. Rule is made absolute.
Ratio and legal principle
- The packaged judgment addresses Old-scheme reopening where capital gains had already been disclosed: change of opinion/incorrect factual premise. The precise proposition must be read with the Court/Tribunal's reasoning and operative directions.
- Reliance depends on matching the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and material evidence recorded in the judgment.
Why this judgment matters
This decision is relevant to practitioners and affected parties dealing with old-scheme reopening where capital gains had already been disclosed: change of opinion/incorrect factual premise. Its value lies in showing how the adjudicating forum connected the applicable rule to the proved facts and procedural posture.
Practitioner action points
- Match the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and decisive evidence before relying on the result.
- Verify current appellate, review and SLP history and any later amendment or controlling authority.
- Attach the complete judgment to the working paper or filing and cite the paragraph/page supporting the proposition.
Can I rely on this judgment?
| Authority level | Tribunal |
|---|---|
| Source integrity | Sanitized readable full judgment copy packaged; official primary replacement pending |
| Repository release | HOLD_SOURCE_OR_LATER_HISTORY |
| Reliance rule | Verify current history and cite the judgment's narrow proposition, not the editorial headnote. |
Does this case match your facts?
Stronger match when
- The same primary issue is raised.
- The same statutory version and jurisdiction apply.
- The procedural stage and burden of proof are comparable.
- The material documentary record is substantially similar.
Weaker / distinguishable when
- A later higher-court ruling changes the position.
- The statutory provision or relevant period differs.
- The evidence or procedural chronology is materially different.
- A defect decisive here was cured in the user's case.
Questions this judgment answers
What was the main dispute in BIMLAKUMARI LAJPATRAJ HURRA Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER?
Old-scheme reopening where capital gains had already been disclosed: change of opinion/incorrect factual premise.
Which facts matter most?
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16884 of 2018 ========================================================== BIMLAKUMARI LAJPATRAJ HURRA Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER, ========================================================== Appearance: DARSHAN R PATEL(8486) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR. KARAN SANGHANI WITH MRS KALPANAK RAVAL(1046) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
What did the Court / Tribunal to be verified decide?
7. The petition stands allowed. Rule is made absolute.
What legal principle can be taken from the judgment?
The packaged judgment addresses Old-scheme reopening where capital gains had already been disclosed: change of opinion/incorrect factual premise. The precise proposition must be read with the Court/Tribunal's reasoning and operative directions. Reliance depends on matching the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and material evidence recorded in the judgment.
Which provisions should be checked?
The exact provisions identified in the packaged judgment and their version applicable to the relevant period.
When is the case most useful?
When the user's facts raise the same issue - Old-scheme reopening where capital gains had already been disclosed: change of opinion/incorrect factual premise - at a comparable procedural stage and under the same statutory version.
What could distinguish the case?
Different evidence, jurisdiction, statutory period, procedural chronology, or later controlling authority can materially change the result.
Can it be cited without another current-law check?
No. Read the packaged judgment and verify current appellate/review/SLP history, statutory amendments and jurisdiction before citation or advice.
Section / provision impact
- See the statutory provisions identified in the packaged judgment.
Case network
Similar issue / useful comparison
- NITIN NEMA VS ITO WARD 1(1) JABALPUR & ORS - Madhya Pradesh High Court - Jabalpur
- Uttrakhand Poorv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd. vs. ITO - ITAT Dehradun Circuit Bench
- Jindal Exports and Imports Private Limited vs. DCIT - Delhi High Court
Different outcome / possible distinction
- JM Financial Asset Management Ltd. v. DCIT - Allowed
- Stewart Science College,Cuttack Vs ITO Ward 1(1), Cuttack - Operative order controls
Full judgment and source control
Read / download packaged judgment record
Source class: SANITIZED_LOCAL_FULL_JUDGMENT_COPY_PRIMARY_PENDING · Repository status: HOLD_SOURCE_OR_LATER_HISTORY
Finin2min Judgment Intelligence is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal, tax, accounting, investment or other professional advice and is not a substitute for advice on the user's specific facts. The Finin2min summary, Q&A, reliance profile, fact-match indicators, comparisons and practical takeaways are editorial analysis and are not part of the Court/Tribunal judgment. Before citing, filing, advising or acting on a case, read the complete official judgment/order, verify the cause title, case number, coram, date, applicable statutory text and jurisdiction, and check subsequent appellate history, review/SLP status and later amendments. A similar fact pattern does not guarantee the same outcome. No advocate-client, CA-client or other professional relationship is created by use of this page.