INCOME TAX OFFICER, FARIDABAD vs. VISHAL JAIN, FARIDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7799/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 April 2026AY 2019-204 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal followed the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the assessee's own case, which held that the notice under Section 148 was invalid due to lack of jurisdiction. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in trading electronic goods, filed his return of income. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147 and made an addition to the income. The CIT(A) allowed the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for reassessment proceedings. The Tribunal also considered the jurisdiction of the issuing authority.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148A,Section 148,Section 69C,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

For Appellant: Shri Ranjan Chopra, C.A
For Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 29.04.2026Pronounced: 29.04.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 7799/Del/2025 (Assessment Year : 2019-20) ITO Vs. Vishal Jain Ward – 2(3), House No.427, Sector – 15A NH-IV, Block –B, New CGO Faridabad Complex, Faridabad – 121 001 Haryana – 121 007 Haryana PAN No : AEJPJ 8119 A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Shri Ranjan Chopra, C.A. Revenue by Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing: 29.04.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 29.04.2026

ORDER PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned appeal preferred by the Revenue is against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi dated 09.09.2025 arising out of Assessment order dated 13.03.2024 passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as –‘the Act’) by the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2019-20.

ITA No. 7799/DEL/2025 [A.Y 2019-20] ITO vs. Vishal Jain 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and runs a proprietorship concern in the name of M/s Digital World and is primarily engaged in the business of trading of electronic goods. The assessee filed his return of income on 17.10.2019, for A.Y. 2019-20 declaring a net income of Rs.41,25,550/-. 3. The assessee received show-cause notices under the provisions of Section 148A(b) of the Act for A.Y. 2019-20. Not being satisfied with assessee’s response, the AO passed an order u/s 148A(d) and issued a notice under section 148 of the Act dated 31.03.2023. On 21.04.2023, the assessee duly filed his return of the income for A.Y. 2019-20. Subsequently, the assessment of the assessee was completed u/s 147 of the Act making an addition of Rs.2,60,44,983/- to the total income under Section 69C r.w.s 115BBE. Aggrieved, assessee was in appeal before the learned CIT(A) who allowed the appeal of the assessee by following the order of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the own case of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal with the following grounds: “a) Whether the impugned order given by the Ld.CIT(A) is perverse on both the facts and law of the case. b) Whether the order given by the Ld. CIT(A) is perverse both on facts and law by not considering the office memorandum dated 20th February, 2023 F. No. 370153/7/2023-TPL, which is duly interpreted in right context by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Sanghi Steel Udyog Private Limited vs. Union of India and Ors. (WPO/1549/2023). Page 2 of 5

ITA No. 7799/DEL/2025 [A.Y 2019-20] ITO vs. Vishal Jain c) Whether the order given by the Ld. CIT (A) is perverse both on facts and law in view of the Judgement of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Dhiraj Lakhotia vs Union of India & Anr. Vide WPA 1458 of 2024 given on 16.8.2024. (d) The department has filed SLP on the same issue before Supreme Court of India which is sub-judiced.” 5. At the outset, learned Counsel for the assessee stated that the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in assessee’s own case in CWP-13348-2025 (O&M) dated 12.05.2025 has held that the notice u/s 148 of the Act, issued on 31.03.2023 for A.Y. 2019-20 by the Assessing Officer, was not valid as the issuing authority had no jurisdiction. 6. Per contra, learned DR relied on the order of authorities below. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, has already allowed the Writ petition with regard to validity of notice under section 148 of the Act, in assessee’s own case for AY 2019-20. Following the judicial discipline therefore, we hold that the appeal of the revenue do not survive and is accordingly, dismissed as such. 8. In the result, Revenue’s appeal in ITA No. 7799/DEL/2025 is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 29.04.2026 Sd/- Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) NAVEEN CHANDRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Date:- 26.05.2026 Priti Yadav, Sr. Ps* Page 3 of 5

ITA No. 7799/DEL/2025 [A.Y 2019-20] ITO vs. Vishal Jain Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI

Page 4 of 5

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →