VISHAKHA SINHA KHETRAPAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 30(5), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 931/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 July 2026AY 2015-164 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 assessment order was indeed time-barred, citing a Supreme Court decision. It also found the penalty for the second PAN to be unjustified due to a bona fide mistake and the subsequent surrender of the PAN.

What were the facts?

The assessee's assessment order for AY 2015-16 was challenged as being time-barred. Additionally, a penalty was levied for obtaining a second PAN number inadvertently after marriage, which was later surrendered.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessment order was barred by limitation and if a penalty under Section 272B(1) was leviable for obtaining a second PAN inadvertently.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 272B(1),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “F”, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI M BALAGANESH & SHRI VIMAL KUMAR

For Appellant: Adv. Sh. Neeraj Mangla, CA
For Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Hearing: 01.07.2026Pronounced: 08.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 931 & 932/Del/2026, A.Y. 2015-16 Vishakha Sinha Khetrapal Vs. Income Tax Officer, B-174, East of Kailash, Ward 30(5), New Delhi Delhi Delhi-110065 �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: DEDPK1456J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Sh. Praveen Kumar Bansal, Adv. Sh. Neeraj Mangla, CA Respondent by : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 01.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement 08.07.2026

O R D E R PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM: The appeals filed by the assessee are against separate orders dated 28.11.2025 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/ NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the CIT(A)”) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) arising out of assessment order dated 29.05.2023 u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act and penalty order dated 14.03.2024

P a g e | 2 ITA No. 931 & 932/Del/2026 Vishakha Sinha Khetrapal

u/s 272B(1) of the Act by the Assessing Officer/Assessment Unit (hereinafter reffered to as “the AO”) respectively for AY 2015-16.

2.

In ITA No. 931/Del/2026, Ld. Authorized Representative for the appellant/assessee submitted that assessment order dated 29.05.2023 for assessment year 2015-16 was barred by time. Reliance was placed on decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal, 469 ITR 46(SC).

3.

Ld. Departmental Representative relied on impugned orders.

4.

From appraisal of record in light of aforesaid rival contention, it is apparent that ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 28.11.2025 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the assessment order dated 29.05.2023 for assessment year 2015-16.

5.

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India and Ors vs. Rajeev Bansal 469 ITR 46 (SC) in para No. 19 observed as under: -

“19. Mr. N Venkataraman, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, made the following submissions on behalf of the Revenue: a. Xxxx b. Xxxx c. Xxxx d. Xxxx e. Xxxx

P a g e | 3 ITA No. 931 & 932/Del/2026 Vishakha Sinha Khetrapal

f. The Revenue concedes that for the assessment year 2015-16, all notices issued on or after 1 April 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under TOLA;” 6. In view of above well settled legal position, the impugned orders dated 28.11.2025 of Ld. CIT(A) and assessment orders dated 29.05.2023 of ld. AO for A.Y. 2015-16 being illegal, are set aside.

7.

Ld. Authorized Representative for appellant/assessee regarding ITA No. 932/Del/2026 submitted that the appellant / assessee after marriage out of ignorance and lack of knowledge obtained PAN No. DEDPK1456J inadvertently. Though, she was filing her ITRs under PAN No. BDWPS0327Q for several year prior to her marriage. Subsequently, the appellant/assessee surrendered PAN No. DEDPK1456J on 15.06.2022. Therefore, the penalty order may be set aside.

8.

Ld. Departmental Representative relied on impugned order.

9.

From examination of record, in light above rival contentions, it is crystal clear that Ld. CIT(A) vide orders dated 28.11.2025 upheld penalty order dated 14.03.2024 u/s 272B(1) of the Act. The appellant/assessee has submitted that after marriage due to inadvertence, she obtained PAN No. DEDPK1456J. Although, prior to marriage, the assessee was filing ITR with PAN No.

P a g e | 4 ITA No. 931 & 932/Del/2026 Vishakha Sinha Khetrapal

BDWPS0327Q for several years. The plea of inadvertent bonafide mistake does not smack of malafides as appellant has not gained anything. Moreover, appellant had surrendered of 2nd PAN No. DEDPK1456J on 15.06.2022. In view of above facts, in the interest of justice, the impugned orders dated 28.11.2025 of ld. CIT(A) and 14.03.2024 of ld. AO are set aside.

10.

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 08.07.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (M BALAGANESH) (VIMAL KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 08.07.2026 Binita, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →