BIMLA GOLA,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 35(5), DELHI, DELHI

Now come the first and foremost issue between the parties, i.e., validity of the impugned reopening itself. Learned counsel invites the tribunal’s attention to the assessee’s 9th documents in the case records indicating the Assessing Officer’s section 148A notice issued on 22.03.2024 which finally culminated in his assessment order passed on 24th March, 202, inter alia, making the twin additions of Rs. 28 lacs and Rs. 9,83,514/- u/s 56(2)(vii) of the Act and purchase of car; respectively, totalling to Rs. 37,83,514/- in question. The assessee’s case, accordingly, is that given the fact that the impugned reopening has been initiated for assessing income or finally taxing his escaped income of less than Rs. 50 lacs, the reopening itself is not sustainable in law u/s 149(1)(b) of the Act.

The Revenue on the other hand, vehemently supports the impugned reopening that the same had been very well initiated in the assessee’s case for the purpose of assessing his income more than Rs. 50 lacs.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assesse and the Revenue forgoing vehement submissions. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the assessee’s income assessed herein falls less than 50 lacs which forms a pre-condition in initiation of a reopening beyond the statutory period of 3 years from the end of the relevant assessment year (A.Y.) 2017-18. I thus, quote “Naresh Balchandrarao Shinde vs. ITO [2023] 451 ITR 149 (Mumbai), to conclude that such reopening, initiated in violation of income escaping assessment having less than Rs. 50 lacs amount is not sustainable u/s 149(1)(b) of the Act. The same stands quashed in very terms therefore.