Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's original assessment for AY 2010-11 was completed under Section 143(3). The Assessing Officer subsequently initiated reopening proceedings under Section 147/148 by issuing a Section 148 notice on 30.03.2017, which was beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The AO added Rs. 31,68,725/- in a best judgment assessment, and the CIT(A) remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Held
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment beyond the statutory four-year period was invalid. The Assessing Officer failed to mandatorily record the assessee's failure to disclose all relevant particulars fully and truly, as required by the first proviso to Section 147. Such reopening, without specifying the assessee's failure, is not sustainable in law.
Key Issues
Whether the reopening of an assessment under Section 147/148 beyond four years, without explicitly recording the assessee's failure to disclose material facts fully and truly, is legally sustainable.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 143(3), 144
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 : 2010-11 Sri Shivdan Singh Shikshan Vs DCIT(Exemption), Sansthan, 10th Mile Stone, Aligarh Circle, Mathura Road, Jaroth, Iglas, Aligarh, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh-202124 Uttar Pradesh-201002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AADTS5727R Assessee by: None Revenue by : Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 24.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 24.06.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1072463990(1) dated 23.01.2025, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
It emerges during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that the learned departmental authorities had completed section 143(3) assessment in the assessee’s case on 05.03.2013 followed by the Assessing Officer’s impugned action setting into motion section 148/147 proceedings vide section 148 notice issued on Sri Shivdan Singh Shikshan Sansthan 30.03.2017 i.e. well beyond a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year 2010-11. Needless to say, the learned Assessing Officer added the impugned sum of Rs.31,68,725/- in his “best” judgment assessment framed on 19.12.2017 and the CIT(A)/NFAC has restored the matter back to the former authority for his afresh consideration. This is what leaves the assessee aggrieved.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s stand all along and the Revenue vehement submissions reiterating their respective stands. The fact remains that the learned Assessing Officer has invoked his reopening jurisdiction beyond the above statutory four years period; and, therefore, his case is hit by section 147 1st proviso i.e. to mandatorily record the assessee’s failure in disclosing all the relevant particulars ”fully” and “truly” which has gone un-rebutted from the departmental side. I thus quote Hindustan Lever Ltd vs. R. B. Wadkar, ACIT (2004) 268 ITR 332 (Bom) that such a reopening without quoting the assessee’s above failure to the above facts is not sustainable in law which is hereby quashed in very terms.
All other pleadings on merits herein stand rendered academic.