LUXOR NANO TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED ,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, NEW DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH “E’’ : NEW DELHI)

BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT And SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 5058/Del/2025 Asstt. Year : 2016-17 M/s Luxor Nano Technology Pvt. Ltd., Vs. DCIT, CC-30, 229, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-III, New Delhi New Delhi – 110 020 (PAN: AABCL7115P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : None Respondent by : Sh. Tarun Sharda, Sr. DR.

Date of Hearing 29.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement 03.07.2026

ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP: This appeal by the assessee is emanating from the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-30), New Delhi dated 25.06.2025 in appeal No. CIT(A), Delhi-30/1162/2015-16 pertaining to assessment year 2016-17. Assessment in this case was framed by the AO, NFAC, Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act vide order dated 9.1.2024.

2 2. The first issue in this appeal of the assessee is as regards to the order of the CIT(A) confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in assuming the jurisdiction for reopening of assessment u/s. 147 read with section 148 of the Act as the reopening is on the basis of ‘change of opinion’ because the assessee has already been assessed u/s. 143(3) of the Act and all the details relating to the loan transactions with Albela Traders Pvt. Ltd. was discussed during the original assessment proceedings. For this, the assessee has raised the following Ground No. 2:- “2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, initiation and completion of reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act is bad in law as reopening of assessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act merely on the basis of change of opinion, as the case of the appellant have already been assessed u/s. 143(3), is in violation of law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs. Techspan India (P) Ltd. [2018] 92 taxmann.com 361 (SC).”

u/s. 139(1) of the Act on 10.10.2016 declaring loss of

Rs. 5,63,94,000/- and accordingly assessee’s case was selected for

scrutiny assessment and assessed u/s. 143(3) of the Act vide order

dated 25.12.2018 for the relevant assessment year 2016-17.

3 Subsequently, reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act read with

section 148 of the Act dated 22.3.2023 were initiated by the DCIT. In

response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act, assessee filed its return of

income on 20.4.2023 declaring the same loss. The assessee vide its

reply dated 17.3.2023 submits that it had taken loan of Rs. 50 lacs

from Albela Traders Pvt. Ltd. during the financial year 2015-16

relevant to assessment year 2016-17 which was repaid alognwith

interest after deduction of tax at source in the same financial year

2015-16 and all the transactions of loan taken are repaid was made

through banking channels duly accounted for in the books of accounts

of the assessee company. Assessee furnished all the documentary

evidence to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of

transactions of Albela Traders Pvt. Ltd. in respect of loan taken by

the assessee from the aforesaid company. The assessee also filed

confirmation letter issued by Albela Traders Pvt. Ltd. dated 8.5.2015,

showing the details of cheque issued for payment and interest., copy of

audited financial statement of lender company for the financial year

2015-16 and copy of relevant portion of bank statements. This proved

4 that the assessee company has taken loan from Albela Traders Pvt

Ltd. during the financial year under consideration and the

documentary evidences proved that M/s Albela Traders is having

creditworthiness to pay this loan to the assessee company and

genuineness of transactions also proved. It was contended that

genuineness of loan taken from the said company cannot be added as

the same and was repaid on 26.11.2015 i.e. within 7 months and also

during the same financial year. Assessee also financial analysis of

Albela Traders Pvt. Ltd proving that company having sufficient funds

to advance loan to the assessee company and assessee company thus

proved the creditworthiness. Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that

all these details were available with the AO during the original

assessment proceedings and now reopening u/s. 147 of the Act by

issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act is just a ‘change of opinion’ and

nothing else. He relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in the case of ITO vs. TechSpan India (P) Ltd. [2018] 92

taxmann.com 361 (SC) as the instant issue is squarely covered by the

aforesaid decision that the reopening is just change for opinion in the

5 present case. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we quash the

reopening and allow the ground raised by the assessee. As regards

merits of the case, since we have already quashed the assessment, the

other grounds have become academic.