RASHIDA BEGUM,PO-KALWARI, DSTT- MEWAT vs. ITO, WARD 3(1), GURUGRAM, GURUGRAM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6319/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 August 2026AY 2015-163 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were not sustainable in law because the assessee was an individual and the property was purchased by a partnership firm in which she was a partner. Therefore, the impugned reopening was quashed.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings under section 147/148 for alleged unexplained investments. The assessee was found to be a partner in the vendee firm, M/s B.R. Enterprises, which purchased property.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal examined whether the reopening was justified given the assessee's status as an individual and the nature of the transaction.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

For Appellant: Adv (VC)
Hearing: 03.08.2026Pronounced: 03.08.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.6319/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Rashida Begum Vs. Income Tax Officer, W/o Yusuf Urf Haneef, Ward-3(1), Village Guddhi, Guddhi(29), HSIIDC Building, Vanijya P.O.- Kalwari, Nikunj, Udhyog Vihar, Phase- Distt- Mewat, V, Gurugram- 122 001 Haryana- 122 105 PAN: CDSPB1285M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Prakash Sinha, Adv (VC) Sh. Ayush Kumar, Adv. Department by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 03.08.2026 Date of pronouncement 03.08.2026 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM: This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2015-16, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1061447874(1), dated 24.02.2024 involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

ITA No.6319/Del/2026

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

For the reasons stated in the assessee’s condonation averments, delay of 764 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

3.

Coming to the first and foremost legal issue of validity of the impugned reopening itself between the parties herein, a perusal of the case file indicates that the learned Assessing Officer had set into motion section 148/147 proceedings in question for the purpose of assessing the assessee’s alleged unexplained investments of Rs. 32,75,870/- culminating in the very amount added in her hands whereas the learned CIT(A)’s detailed discussion in Para 5.2 at page 4 makes it clear that the concerned vendee happens to be M/s B.R. Enterprises, Village Alampur, Tijara having the twin partners i.e. Smt. Baskar and Smt. Rashida Begum (appellant).

2 | P a g e

ITA No.6319/Del/2026

4.

This being the clinching factual position and the learned CIT(A) having upheld the aforesaid impugned addition to the extent of Rs. 50% in the assessee’s hands, I am of the considered view that the impugned reopening itself is not sustainable in law once the vendee happens to be a partnership firm than the assessee/individual. The impugned reopening stands quashed therefore.

All other remaining pleadings between the parties stand rendered academic.

5.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 03.08.2026.

Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 13.08.2026 Pooja Mittal/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

3 | P a g e

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →