JMW INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CC-13, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3494/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 August 2026AY 2018-196 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 Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to make an addition on an independent issue when the original reasons for reopening were not addressed. The reassessment proceedings were quashed for being without valid jurisdiction.

What were the facts?

The assessee's assessment was reopened based on information regarding a cash loan and receipt from RCI Industries. However, the addition was made on account of bogus purchases from the same company, not the original reason for reopening.

What were the issues?

Whether the reassessment proceedings are valid when the addition made is on a different issue than the one forming the basis for reopening the assessment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 148,Section 148A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, िद�ी पीठ�, नई िद�ी INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCHES, NEW DELHI BENCH: A BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA 3494/DEL/2026 (िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2018-19) JMW INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED DCIT CC-13 C-498, FIRST FLOOR, ROAD NO. 71, - YOJNA VIHAR, Vs. NEW DELHI-110 005 NEW DELHI – 110 092 अपीलाथ� Appellant ��थ� Respondent

Permanent Account Number of Assessee: AAACJ 3260 C

अपीलाथ� �ारा/Appellant represented by: Sh Amit Goel, CA & Sh Pranav Yadav, ADV ��थ� �ारा/Respondent represented by: Sh Balkishan Gopal, SR DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusion of hearing: 06-Aug-2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of pronouncement: 06-Aug-2026 आदेश / ORDER PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Learned CIT(A), Delhi-26 dated 19.02.2026 arising from the assessment order dated 23.03.2023 passed under section 143(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by the AO Assessment Unit, New Delhi for the Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1.

“On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the notice u/s 148A issued in this case is bad-in-law, without jurisdiction and barred by limitation and, therefore, the said notice u/s 148A along with assessment order passed on the foundation of such notice are liable to be quashed and CIT(A) erred in not holding so. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the notice u/s 148 issued in this case is bad-in-law, without jurisdiction and barred by limitation and, therefore, the said notice u/s 148 along with assessment order passed on the foundation of such notice are liable to be quashed and CIT(A) erred in not holding so. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment proceedings initiated are contrary to provisions of law including specific provisions of Section 147 to 151 of the Act and CIT(A) erred in not holding so. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the learned assessing officer and the addition made therein is bad-in-law and CIT(A) erred in not holding so. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition to the extent of Rs. 32,93,580/- on account of Gross Profit on purchases. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) ought to have deleted the entire addition of Rs. 2,74,46,464/- made by the Assessing Officer.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has been carrying out the business of manufacturing the copper strips, wires, cables etc. for the last several years. The assessee had filed its ITR for A.Y 2018-19. On the basis of information that the assessee had made bogus purchase from M/s RCI Industries and Technologies, the AO reopened the assessment u/s 147. Finally, the AO has completed the assessment after making addition of Rs.2,74,46,464/- on account of estimation of profit @ 25% on purchases of Rs.10,97,85,855/- made by the assessee from M/s RCI Industries & Technologies Ltd.

Aggrieved by the order of the AO, assessee was in appeal before 4. the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) given partial relief to the assessee by reducing the GP rate to 3% of the bogus purchase. 5. Aggrieved assessee is now in appeal before us. 6. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently submitted that the assessment was reopened under section 148 of the Act however, no reasons were given for the reopening. The ld. Counsel further stated that the information given to the AO was factually wrong. The ld. Counsel also pointed out that the return of income was filed on record however, the assessing officer stated that the assessee has not filed his ITR in his order under section 148A(d) of the Act. The ld. Counsel stated that the case was reopened on account of the assessee having cash loan of Rs.20,00,000/- and that the assessee had received an amount of Rs.5,91,880/- from RCI Industries and Technologies Limited. However, while making assessment no addition was made on the issue of which the reason for reopening was recorded and the addition was made on account of bogus purchase. The assessee also relied upon the decisions of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jet Airways (I.) Ltd. [2010] 195 Taxman 117 (Bombay) and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. CIT [2011] 12 taxmann.com 74 (Delhi) to argue that the reasons for reopening the assessment and addition made in the reassessment order should be same. 7. On the other hand, ld. DR relied on the order of the AO. 8. We have heard the rival submission and perused the material available on record. We find from the order u/s 148A(d) dated 29.03.2022, that the assessment was reopened on the basis of information of cash loan of Rs.20,00,000/-. However, the details of information given says that an amount of Rs 5,91,880/- has been received from RCI Industries and Technologies Limited. Finally, the addition has been made on account of 25% of bogus purchase of Rs 10,97,85,855/- from RCI Industries and Technologies. In such factual matrix the legal mandate enumerated by the decision of Jet Airways (I.) Ltd. and Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (supra) do not permit the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 148 of the Act. In the instant case, no addition is made on the issue forming the basis of original reasons recorded, and therefore, the assessing officer loses the jurisdiction to make addition on other independent issue without issuing a fresh notice u/s 148 of the Act. We therefore hold in such facts and circumstances, the entire reassessment proceedings as being without a valid jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed. We accordingly, quash the notice u/s 148 as well as the consequent reassessment order. Grounds are disposed off in aforesaid terms. Page 4 of 6

9.

In the result, the appeal in ITA No. 3494/Del/2026 of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 06-Aug-2026 Sd/- Sd/- SATBEER SINGH GODARA NAVEEN CHANDRA JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 21.09.2026 Copy to: JMW INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, C-498, FIRST FLOOR, ROAD NO. 71, YOJNA 1 VIHAR, NEW DELHI-110092, DELHI DCIT CC-13, 2 -, NEW DELHI-110005, DELHI 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, DELHI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →