DEEPAK MOHAN RUDRA,GHAZIABAD, UTTAR PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GHAZIABAD, UP

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2701/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 July 2026AY 2012-134 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 failure to issue and serve the Section 148 notice at the correct address is a fatal flaw that vitiates the reassessment proceedings. Consequently, the reopening was quashed.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147 by issuing a notice under Section 148. However, the notice was allegedly issued and served at an incorrect address, different from the assessee's registered address and the address used for other official communications.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of the reassessment proceedings due to improper issuance and service of the Section 148 notice. The Tribunal also considered whether the lower appellate authority had properly adjudicated the grounds raised.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 144,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI M. BALAGANESH

Hearing: 02.07.2026Pronounced: 02.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2701 & 2702/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2012-13

Deepak Mohan Rudra, Vs Income Tax Officer 820 GF, Sector-12, Friends Colony, Ward-1(2), Ghaziabad- Ghaziabad- 201012 201002 Uttar Pradesh Uttar Pradesh (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AFCPR9812G

Assessee by: Sh. P.C. Yadav, Advocate, Sh. H. S. Arora, Advocate Revenue by : Sh. Tarun Sharda, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 02.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 02.07.2026 ORDER These assessee’s twin appeals ITA Nos. 2701 & 2702/Del/2026; both for assessment year 2012-13, arise against Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short, ‘CIT(A)/NFAC’) DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1085099354(1) & ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1086200185(1) dated 23.01.2026 & 18.02.206, involving proceedings u/s 144 r.w.s 147 & 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act’, respectively.

Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused.

2 2. Coming to the assessee’s “quantum” appeal ITA No. 2701/Del/2026, learned counsel canvasses his first and foremost legal ground/argument challenging validity of the impugned section 148/147 reopening itself for want of a valid issuance/service of the corresponding notice issued on 29.03.2019. It is made clear that there is no dispute between the parties that the learned Assessing Officer had set into motion the impugned proceedings quoting the assessee’s address at C-51, SF-Parashwnath Praradise Mohan Nagar Ghaziabad whereas he appears to have issue yet another notice involving section 133(6) proceedings for the purpose of carrying out the necessary inquiries at house no. i.e., 820GF, Sector-12, Friends Colony, Ghaziabad on 13.03.2019. It is reiterated that the time difference between these two notices is sixteen days only. Mr. Yadav further takes us to page 7 of the assessee’s paperbook that his registered address as per Form 26AS “Traces” statement happens to be at New Arya Nagar, Ghaziabad.

3.

It is in light of the above narrated facts that the assessee’s vehement contention before us is that neither the learned Assessing Officer had issued nor served his section 148 notice as per provisions of the Act going by the three addresses given above. Mr. Yadav seeks to buttress the point that the impugned re-assessment framed in assessee’s case also happens to be “Best Judgement” are u/s 144 of the Act i.e. ex-parte. And also that the assessee had raised the very legal ground before the learned CIT(A) as well (page 45) which has neither been considered nor rejected

3 in light of section 250(6) of the Act requiring him to frame points of determination followed by a detailed adjudication thereupon.

This clinching factual position has gone unrebutted from the Revenue side.

4.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the Revenue’s foregoing vehement submissions against and in support of the validity of the impugned reopening. It has come on record that the learned Assessing Officer had not either issued or served his section 148 reopening notice dated 29.03.2019 to the assessee at the given address going by the department’s portal or PAN; as the case may be. There is further no evidence that he had also been served the same as well. We thus quote PCIT v. Atlanta Capital Pvt. Ltd. (2024) 464 ITR 341 (Delhi)(HC) to conclude that such an error on the learned Assessing Officer’s part is very much fatal to validity of the reopening in question and vitiates the same as well. The impugned reopening is quashed in very terms therefore. The assessee’s quantum appeal ITA No. 2701/Del/2026 as well as the consequential penalty case ITA No. 2702/Del/2026 succeed therefore.

All other remaining pleadings between the parties on merits stand rendered academic.

4 7. These assessee’s twin appeals ITA No. 2701 & 2702/Del/2026 are allowed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.

Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 02.07.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (M. BALAGANESH) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 07.07.2026 *Pooja Mittal, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →