NAVEEN TIMBER PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, KARNAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3568/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 April 2026AY 2012-133 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's reasons for reopening did not indicate that the assessee had failed to disclose all relevant particulars fully and truly in the original assessment. Relying on the Bombay High Court's decision in Hindustan Lever Ltd vs. R. B. Wadkar, ACIT, the Tribunal quashed the reopening.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal pertains to the assessment year 2012-13, challenging the validity of the reopening of assessment. The Assessing Officer had previously completed an assessment and subsequently formed reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment, leading to the impugned reopening.

What were the issues?

The key legal issue was the validity of the reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, specifically whether the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer met the statutory requirement of failure to disclose material particulars fully and truly.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

For Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Adv
Hearing: 15.04.2026Pronounced: 29.04.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.3568/Del/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Vs. Assistant M/s Naveen Timber Private Commissioner of Limited Income Tax, Circle, Karnal C/o R.C.Rai & Associates 203, Akashdeep building, 26A , Barakhamba Road, New Delhi- 01 PAN: AACCN6399L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. R.C. Roy, CA Department by Ms. Ankush Kalra, Adv. Date of hearing 15.04.2026 Date of pronouncement 29.04.2026 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax/National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”) Delhi’s dated 07.06.2024 passed in DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 24/1065486208(1), involving proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

ITA No.3568/Del/2024 2. Learned counsel states at the outset that the assessee/appellant herein canvasses its first and foremost substantive ground challenging validity of the impugned reopening. We next note that the assessee has filed its paper book wherein the Assessing Officer corresponding reopening reasons stand complied in pages 50 to 53 thereof. There does not appear to be a dispute between the parties that the learned assessing officer had framed his section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) assessment in its case on 19.12.2024 assessing income amounting to Rs. 71,75,190/-. He thereafter formed reasons to believe that the assessee’s taxable income liable to be assessed had escaped assessment which led to recording of the impugned reopening reasons which finally culminated in the assessment in issue as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

4.

That being the case, we sought to invite the Revenue’s attention to the learned Assessing Officer’s reopening reasons not even having an iota of indication against the assessee that it had not disclosed all the relevant particulars “fully” and “truly” in the said former round. The same has gone unrebutted from the Revenue side. It is in this factual backdrop we hereby quote Hindustan Lever Ltd vs. R. B. Wadkar, ACIT (2004) 268 2 | P a g e

ITA No.3568/Del/2024 ITR 332 (Bom) that such a failure as the Assessing Officer’s part vitiates the entire reopening itself . We thus quash the impugned reopening in the assessee’s case in very terms. All remaining pleadings between the parties on merits stand rendered academic.

5.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 29.04.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH AGARWAL) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 29.04.2026 Pooja Mittal/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

3 | P a g e

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →