Gurpreet Singh Rajput v. ITO
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
The judgment addresses the issues identified in the case record.
Case snapshot
Sections / provisions: 147; 250
Questions before the Court / Tribunal
- See the source-driven case record below.
Material facts and background
BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 4638/Mum/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Gurpreet Singh Rajput, 507, B Wing, Trishul Apartment, Sindhi Society, Chembur, Mumbai PAN :DGFPS0095M (Appellant) Assessee by Revenue by
Income Tax Officer, Ward-27(1)(5), IT Office, Vashi Railway Station Building, Navi Mumbai (Respondent) : Shri Ketan Sinroja (Virtually) : Smt. Usha Gaikwad, Sr.DR
ORDER PER B.R. BASKARAN, A.M : The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dt.16-07-2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [„Ld.CIT(A)‟] and it relates to AY. 2017-18. 2.
the order ex-parte, since the assessee did not appear before the him. We notice that the Ld.CIT(A) has not adjudicated the issues urged by the assessee on merits.
the Ld.CIT(A) for the reasons beyond his control and accordingly prayed that the assessee may be provided with one more opportunity to present his case properly. 4.
present case, we find merit in the submissions made by Ld.AR. Accordingly, in the interest of natural justice, we are of the view that the assessee may be provided with one more opportunity to present his case properly before the Ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) and restore all the issues to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for adjudicating them on merits, after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We also direct the assessee to fully co-operate with the Ld.CIT(A) for expeditious disposal of the issue in appeal. 5.
The Appellant The Respondent The CIT concerned The D.R, ITAT, Mumbai Guard file By Order Dy./Asst. Registrar I.T.A.T, Mumbai
Appellant / assessee submissions
The judgment copy does not separately set out this component in a distinct section; refer to the full order and the reasoning section below.
Revenue / respondent submissions
The judgment copy does not separately set out this component in a distinct section; refer to the full order and the reasoning section below.
Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning
present case, we find merit in the submissions made by Ld.AR. Accordingly, in the interest of natural justice, we are of the view that the assessee may be provided with one more opportunity to present his case properly before the Ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) and restore all the issues to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for adjudicating them on merits, after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We also direct the assessee to fully co-operate with the Ld.CIT(A) for expeditious disposal of the issue in appeal. 5.
Operative decision and relief
present case, we find merit in the submissions made by Ld.AR. Accordingly, in the interest of natural justice, we are of the view that the assessee may be provided with one more opportunity to present his case properly before the Ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) and restore all the issues to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for adjudicating them on merits, after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We also direct the assessee to fully co-operate with the Ld.CIT(A) for expeditious disposal of the issue in appeal. 5.
The Appellant The Respondent The CIT concerned The D.R, ITAT, Mumbai Guard file By Order Dy./Asst. Registrar I.T.A.T, Mumbai
Authorities and precedents appearing in the judgment
- Revenue by vs. Income Tax Officer
This list is machine-assisted from the judgment text and is not a substitute for checking the full citation chain in the PDF.
Ratio and legal principle
The decision turns on the statutory and factual issues recorded above. The operative result is classified as Quashed Or Set Aside. Read the rule only with the statutory version, factual findings and precedent chain recorded in the full judgment.
Why this judgment matters
The case is relevant to taxpayers, advisers and litigators dealing with Income Tax. Its practical value lies in the interaction between the statutory text, the evidentiary record and the procedural route followed in this case.
Practitioner action points
- Reconstruct the reassessment timeline: original assessment, section 148A notice/reply, approval authority, notice date and the applicable section 149 limitation window.
- Preserve the complete response to section 148A(b), objections and proof of disposal; jurisdictional defects are often decided from the documentary chronology.
- For litigation, attach the full judgment/order to the working paper and cite the paragraph/page supporting the proposition rather than relying on a headnote alone.
Do not over-read this case
- The packaged PDF is not yet an issuing-authority certified copy
- Apply the statutory law applicable to the relevant year; later amendments can change the result.
- Check whether a later High Court or Supreme Court judgment has affirmed, distinguished, reversed or superseded this decision.
How to apply this decision in practice
This ITAT Mumbai decision should be used by matching the client’s facts to the precise controversy in the case—the disputed issue—rather than by relying only on the result. Start with the statutory version applicable to the relevant year and compare it with 147, 250. Amendments, notifications, later Supreme Court/High Court decisions and a different procedural stage can materially change the answer.
For an assessment or litigation file, retain the documents that prove the factual bridge on which the judgment turns: the original notice/order, replies and objections, acknowledgements of filing/service, ledger and banking trail where relevant, contracts or property instruments where relevant, and the complete appellate chronology. If the case succeeds on jurisdiction or natural justice, do not assume the same outcome where the authority cures that defect. If it succeeds on evidence, identify exactly which documents the Court or Tribunal considered persuasive.
For reassessment/search matters, preserve the original reasons/information, section 148A show-cause and reply, sanction/approval, service trail, search panchnama and the material said to be incriminating. The jurisdictional timeline often matters as much as the quantum issue.
Finin2min reliance rule: cite the case for the narrow legal proposition actually decided, record any contrary authority, and attach the full judgment to the working paper or litigation file. This reduces the risk of a headnote or short summary being used outside its factual and statutory context.
Finin2min Judgment Intelligence
Decision support built around the judgment: reliance, fact match, Q&A, section impact, related-case network and practical next steps.
Can I rely on this judgment?
| Authority level | ITAT |
|---|---|
| Reliance effect | Tribunal precedent. Persuasive for similar facts; subject to the jurisdictional High Court and Supreme Court. Coordinate-Bench discipline should be checked. |
| Source integrity | A sanitized local full-text judgment copy is packaged; official-primary replacement remains pending. |
| Subsequent history | Subsequent appellate history is not fully closed in the current ledger. Recheck before filing or opinion work. |
| Finin2min status | Later-history check open |
Does this case match your facts?
Stronger match when
- Your dispute raises the same core issue: the principal issue.
- The same statutory provisions or materially equivalent provisions apply: 147, 250.
- Your matter is at a comparable the same procedural and factual stage stage.
- Your documentary/evidentiary record is materially similar to the facts the ITAT Mumbai considered: BEFORE SHRI B.R.
- The same legal regime or assessment-period rules relevant to AY 2017-18 apply to your matter.
Weaker / distinguishable when
- A later Supreme Court or jurisdictional High Court ruling changes the legal position.
- The statutory provision was amended for your year or transaction.
- Your evidence, transaction structure, notice chronology or procedural stage differs on a fact the judgment treated as material.
- The case succeeded on a narrow jurisdictional/procedural defect that the authority has cured in your matter.
Questions this judgment answers
What was the main dispute in Gurpreet Singh Rajput?
The judgment addresses the issues identified in the case record.
Which facts mattered most to the result?
BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 4638/Mum/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Gurpreet Singh Rajput, 507, B Wing, Trishul Apartment, Sindhi Society, Chembur, Mumbai PAN :DGFPS0095M (Appellant) Assessee by Revenue by Income Tax Officer, Ward-27(1)(5), IT Office, Vashi Railway Station Building, Navi Mumbai (Respondent) : Shri Ketan Sinroja (Virtually) : Smt.
What did the ITAT Mumbai ultimately decide?
present case, we find merit in the submissions made by Ld.AR. Accordingly, in the interest of natural justice, we are of the view that the assessee may be provided with one more opportunity to present his case properly before the Ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) and restore all the issues to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for adjudicating them on merits, after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
What legal principle can be taken from this judgment?
The decision turns on the statutory and factual issues recorded above. The operative result is classified as Quashed Or Set Aside. Read the rule only with the statutory version, factual findings and precedent chain recorded in the full judgment.
Which provisions should be checked before relying on the case?
The case engages 147, 250. The relevant statutory version for AY 2017-18 should be checked together with any later amendment, notification, circular and controlling higher-court authority.
When is this judgment most useful to a taxpayer or adviser?
The case is relevant to taxpayers, advisers and litigators dealing with Income Tax . Its practical value lies in the interaction between the statutory text, the evidentiary record and the procedural route followed in this case.
What could make this judgment distinguishable or unsafe to rely on?
The packaged PDF is not yet an issuing-authority certified copy Apply the statutory law applicable to the relevant year; later amendments can change the result. Check whether a later High Court or Supreme Court judgment has affirmed, distinguished, reversed or superseded this decision.
Can this judgment be cited as current law without another check?
Tribunal precedent. Persuasive for similar facts; subject to the jurisdictional High Court and Supreme Court. Coordinate-Bench discipline should be checked. Subsequent appellate history is not fully closed in the current ledger. Recheck before filing or opinion work. A sanitized local full-text judgment copy is packaged; official-primary replacement remains pending.
Section / provision impact
- 147 — 147 is part of the statutory framework considered in the context of the dispute. Read the exact provision applicable to the relevant year with the Court/Tribunal reasoning.
- 250 — 250 is part of the statutory framework considered in the context of the dispute. Read the exact provision applicable to the relevant year with the Court/Tribunal reasoning.
How the decision changes your analysis
Before using this authority, frame the issue under 147, 250 and identify the decisive facts/evidence. The result should not be assumed from the case title alone.
The decision turns on the statutory and factual issues recorded above. The operative result is classified as Quashed Or Set Aside. Read the rule only with the statutory version, factual findings and precedent chain recorded in the full judgment.
Tribunal precedent. Persuasive for similar facts; subject to the jurisdictional High Court and Supreme Court. Coordinate-Bench discipline should be checked. Subsequent appellate history is not fully closed in the current ledger. Recheck before filing or opinion work.
Case network: similar and different outcomes
Authorities appearing in this judgment: Revenue by vs. Income Tax Officer
Closest related cases in the Finin2min repository
Related cases with a different result
Related-case links are repository similarity connections, not a claim that one judgment cites or overrules another. Use the cited-authority list and later-history check for formal precedent analysis.
Working-paper citation
Full judgment and source trail
Read / download the clean local judgment copy
| Packaged source class | SANITIZED_LOCAL_FULL_JUDGMENT_COPY_PRIMARY_PENDING |
|---|---|
| Pages | 3 |
| SHA-256 | 3626e4218ed48bbd3006f8ff952aae46fff14853ddd18d353201ce5b1a365316 |
| Original source URL | Not exposed publicly. Original provenance retained only in the private source-closure ledger. |
| Source authentication | Sanitized local full-text copy - official primary replacement pending |