ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. NOUVELLE SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED, NEW DELHI
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the recording of satisfaction note is a key event for calculating the ten-year period for reassessment. Since the assessment year 2012-13 fell beyond this period, the assumption of jurisdiction by issuing notice u/s 148 was vitiated.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against the order of the Ld. FAA, which arose from an assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. The Ld. FAA had concluded that the assessment for the year 2012-13 was beyond the ten-year period from the recording of satisfaction.
What were the issues?
Whether the reopening of assessment for Assessment Year 2012-13 under Section 147/148 was valid when the period exceeded ten years from the recording of satisfaction.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- CIT v. RRJ Securities Ltd.689 citing62 Taxmann.com 391 · 2016 · HC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES: E : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
Assessment Year: 2012-13 ACIT, Vs Nouvelle Securities Private Ltd., CC-4, 43, Community Centre, Delhi. New Friends Colony, New Delhi. PAN: AAACN0211F CO No.39/Del/2025 ( Assessment Year: 2012-13 Nouvelle Securities Private Ltd., Vs. ACIT, 43, Community Centre, CC-4, New Friends Colony, Delhi New Delhi. PAN: AAACN0211F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Biren Shah, CA Revenue by : Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 17.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 31.07.2025 ORDER
PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:
This appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the order dated 21.08.2024 of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. First Appellate Authority or ‘the Ld. FAA’, CO No.39/Del/2025 for short) in Appeal No.CIT(A), Delhi-23/10079/2011-12 arising out of the appeal before it against the order dated 26.03.2024 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by the ACIT, CC-4, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO). The assessee has filed Cross Objection.
Heard and perused the record. Although the ld. DR has heavily relied the order of the ld. AO, quite apparently, we find that the ld.CIT(A) has benefitted the assessee primarily relying the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ojjus Medicare Pvt Ltd & Others [2024] 161 taxmann.com and CIT Versus RRJ Securities [2015]62taxmann.com 391 (Delhi) by concluding that the assessment for the relevant assessment year 2012-13 was beyond the period of ten years and calculated from the date of recording of satisfaction of 24.03.2023. Admittedly, a search was conducted on the premises of Filatex group on 01.09.2021 and based on the search, the ld. AO had recorded satisfaction in case of the assessee to reopen the case of the assessee. It is now the settled proposition of law that recording of satisfaction note is key event and that gives rise to computation of ten years for the purpose of calculating the reassessment and assessment year 2012-13 is beyond the period of ten years. Thus, assumption of jurisdiction by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act was vitiated for which the ld.CIT(A) has benefited the assessee and we find no reason to interfere in the same. The appeal of the Revenue has no
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- DCIT, New Delhi vs M/S Htl Ltd., ChennaiDelhi14 Oct 2021Dismissed
Also relies on CIT v. RRJ Securities Ltd.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the prior period expenses were allowable as they crystallized during the year. It also confirmed that liquidated damages were contractual obligations and not penal,...
- DCIT, Central Circle-17, Delhi vs Ashwani Kumar Gupta, LucknowDelhi28 Oct 2025Dismissed
Also relies on CIT v. RRJ Securities Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the block period for assessment under Section 153C is to be calculated from the date the documents are handed over to the jurisdictional AO of the non-searched person, not the date of the original ...
- DCIT Central Circle-II, Noida vs Apple Commodities Ltd, NoidaDelhi10 Jul 2024Dismissed
Also relies on CIT v. RRJ Securities Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was bad in law and quashed it. This was because no incriminating material belonging to the assessee was found during the search, and the jurisdictional condition for issuing a ...
- DCIT, CC-7(3), Mumbai vs Satish Jagannath Aggarwal, MumbaiMumbai20 Apr 2023Dismissed
Also relies on CIT v. RRJ Securities Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to substantiate any incriminating material found and seized pertaining to the assessment year in question. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was without jurisdicti...
- ACIT, New Delhi vs M/S. Vision Town Planners Pvt. Ltd., NoidaDelhi18 Nov 2021Dismissed
Also relies on CIT v. RRJ Securities Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed under Section 153C was invalid because the satisfaction note was not properly recorded and the date of receipt of seized documents by the AO, not the date of search, sho...
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026