Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2012-13 arose from an order passed under Section 147 read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The reopening was challenged on grounds of validity.
Held
The Tribunal held that the reopening was invalid because the assessment order already completed a regular assessment under Section 143(3) and the reasons for reopening did not indicate non-disclosure by the assessee.
Key Issues
Validity of reopening of assessment initiated under Section 147 when a regular assessment under Section 143(3) was already completed.
Sections Cited
147, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
Asstt. Year: 2012-13 RKFMA Productions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Income Tax Officer, (formerly known as Welworth Ward-20(3), Properties Pvt. Ltd.), 8A/8, New Delhi-110002 Western Extension Area, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACW0825C Assessee by: Sh. A. K. Srivastava, FCA Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 23.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 23.07.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1074934562(1) dated 24.03.2025, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
A perusal of the case file indicates at the outset that there arises the first and foremost issue of validity of the impugned reopening itself initiated in the assessee’s case. This is for the precise reason that even the learned Assessing Officer fairly observes in the assessment order dated 20.12.2019 that he had already completed a regular assessment in assessee’s hands on RKFMA Productions Pvt. Ltd. 30.09.2012 u/s 143(3) of the Act; and, therefore, once the corresponding reopening reasons in challenge do not attribute the assessee not to have disclosed all the relevant particular; “fully” and “truly”, I hereby quote section 147 1st proviso to quash the impugned reopening in very terms in light of Hindustan Lever Ltd vs. R. B. Wadkar, ACIT (2004) 268 ITR 332 (Bom). Ordered accordingly.
All other pleadings on merits stand rendered academic.