RAM AVTAR GOYAL,BARWALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, HISAR, HISAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1601/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 June 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 found that the AO's reasons for reopening were based on a misunderstanding, as the assessment had already been completed under Section 143(3), not just processed under Section 143(1). This vitiated the reopening proceedings.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged the reopening of assessment under Section 147. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued a notice under Section 148 after an initial assessment under Section 143(3) was completed.

What were the issues?

Whether the assumption of jurisdiction for reopening assessment under Section 147 was valid when the AO incorrectly stated that no scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) had been made.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 143(3),Section 143(1),Section 151

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, DELHI

Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA&

Hearing: 23.06.2026Pronounced: 30.06.2026

P a g e | 1 ITA No.1601/Del/2026 Ram Avtar Goyal (AY: 2012-13) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, DELHI

BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1601/Del/2026 (Assessment Year: 2012-13)

Ram Avtar Goyal Vs. ITO, Ward-3 1 K.M. Stone, Hisar Road, Income-tax Department Barwala Distt. Hisar, Aaykar Bhawan, Sector-14 Haryana Hisar, Haryana – 125001 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: ACGPA1065P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Sh. Lalit Mohan, CA Respondent by : Sh. Bal Krishan Gopal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 23.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement 30.06.2026

O R D E R PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:

This appeal preferred by the assessee against the order dated 18.12.2025 of Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the First Appellate Authority or ‘the ld. FAA’ for short) in DIN & Order No: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1083851290(1) arising out of the assessment order dated 30.12.2019 u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147

P a g e | 2 ITA No.1601/Del/2026 Ram Avtar Goyal (AY: 2012-13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed by ITO, Ward -3, Hisar, for AY: 2012-13.

2.

On hearing both the sides we find that on behalf of assesse vide ground No. 1, 9 to 12 assessee has challenged the assumption of jurisdiction of reopening assessment u/s 147 r.w.s 148 of the Act by asserting that the reasons for issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act show complete non- application of mind and a mechanical approach.

3.

The ld. DR has though defended the impugned orders and the reasons for reopening, however, what we find material from record and admitted facts is that in the impugned assessment was completed us/ 143/147 of the Act and the assessing officer specifically mentions the fact that return in the case was filed on 20.09.2012 and the case was selected for scrutiny and assessment was completed on 18.12.2014 at Rs.5,13,350/-. Meaning thereby that assessment u/s 143(3) stood concluded and thereupon the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 28.03.2019 after recording reasons for reopening and the copy of which is made available at page No. 1 to 3 of the paper book.

4.

On appreciating the same we find that in form for recording the reasons for initiating proceedings u/s u/s 147/148 and for obtaining the

P a g e | 3 ITA No.1601/Del/2026 Ram Avtar Goyal (AY: 2012-13) approval of prescribed authority for the purpose of Section 151 of the Act the assessing officer had mentioned in column No. 8 that the assessment is proposed to be for the first time though the date of filing of the return is mentioned as 30th September, 2012. Then in the reasons for issuing of notice in para 1 assessing officer observes of the return being filed on 30th September, 2012 and the same has been processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. In concluding paragraph assessing officer specifically mentions that the return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act but no scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was made. In view of the above clause (b) of Explanation 2 to Section 147 was invoked.

5.

Thus, without doubt at the time of recording of the reasons assessing officer has not even cared to examine the fact as to how the assesse had reported its income and was examined by the department so as to allege escapement of income. This fact would have been vital even for assumption of jurisdiction as in regard to Assessment Year 2012-13 the notice of reopening has been issued on 28.03.2019 i.e. well beyond the 4 years. Therefore, further requirement of the proviso to Section 148 was required to be mentioned but in the reasons assessing officer has proceeded on the assumption that there was no scrutiny assessment. The reasons as recorded are thus vitiated and consequential proceedings also get vitiated. In similar

P a g e | 4 ITA No.1601/Del/2026 Ram Avtar Goyal (AY: 2012-13) facts and circumstances the Coordinate Bench in KMV Industries Vs. ITO in ITA No. 4594/Del/2025 dated 18.02.2026; Kesri Steels Ltd. Vs. ACIT, in ITA No. 7717/Del/2018 order dated 17.11.2022; Shakar Lal Vs. ITO vide ITA No. 3808/Del/2024 order dated 02.05.2025 held that such reasons cannot be sustained.

6.

Accordingly, we are inclined to sustain the corresponding grounds. The appeal is allowed and the impugned assessment order is quashed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 30.06.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (Amitabh Shukla) (Anubhav Sharma) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated 30.06.2026 Rohit, 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 →