Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against an order arising from reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act for AY 2015-16. The reassessment concerned alleged cash deposits of Rs.4,62,50,000/-, but ultimately only Rs.18,50,000/- was added.
Held
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated on incorrect facts and were beyond the statutory period of three years, as the amount involved was less than Rs.50 lacs. Therefore, the reopening was not sustainable in law.
Key Issues
Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147/148 were validly commenced within the prescribed time limit and on correct facts.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 148, 149(1)(b)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Raj Bala, Vs Income Tax Officer, Post Office Kanwi, Tehsil Narnaul, Ward-1, Mahendergarh, Haryana-123001 Narnaul, Haryana-123001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. BJMPB1387H Assessee by: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CA Revenue by : Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 25.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 25.06.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2015-16, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1072284407(1) dated 17.01.2025, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
A perusal of the instant case file reveals that the learned lower authorities had set into motion section 148/147 mechanism against the assessee by way of notice dated 29.03.2022, for the purpose of assessing her alleged cash deposits of Rs.4,62,50,000/-, made in Mahendergarh Central Co-operative Bank whereas the re-assessment in question framed on 10.03.2023 accepted her explanation disowning the
This being the clinching factual position, the department could hardly dispute that not only the learned assessing authority had erred in law and on facts in assuming it’s re- opening jurisdiction on apparently incorrect facts but also the same was initiated beyond the statutory period of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year 2015-16 herein since involving the alleged income escaping assessment of Rs.18,50,000/- is less than Rs.50 lacs going by section 149(1)(b) of the Act. That being the case, the tribunal finds merit in the assessee’s legal arguments that the impugned reopening is not sustainable in law in very terms. Ordered accordingly.