INDERPAL KAUR REKHI,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (WARD 45(1), DELHI), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 9093/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 April 2026AY 2010-112 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 ITO at Chandigarh lacked jurisdiction to initiate reassessment proceedings as the assessee was assessed in Delhi. Therefore, the reopening was vitiated and quashed.

What were the facts?

The Income Tax Officer (ITO) at Chandigarh initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147 against the assessee, who was assessed in Delhi. The assessee challenged the validity of this reopening.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of the reassessment proceedings initiated by an Income Tax Officer without territorial jurisdiction.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

For Appellant: Ms. Gurkiran Kaur, CA (VC)
For Respondent: DR (VC)
Hearing: 22.04.2026Pronounced: 22.04.2026

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2010-11, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN & Order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1082136599(1) dated 30.10.2025, involving proceedings under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961; hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’.

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

ITA No.9093/Del/2025

2.

Coming to the first and foremost legal issue of validity of impugned reopening itself herein, it emerges from a perusal of case records that it was the learned ITO, Ward-2(1), Chandigarh who had set into motion section 148 proceedings against her on 22.03.2017 whereas she has been all along been assessed at Delhi only even going by the assessment order framed by the ITO, Ward- 43(5) New Delhi. This is thus an instance of the learned ITO at Chandigarh having wrongly assumed section 148 jurisdiction in the assessee’s case in other words which vitiates the reopening under challenge as an instance of lack of jurisdictions. The same stands quashed for the very precise reason. All other pleadings between the parties on merits are rendered academic.

3.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd April, 2026. Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) 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

2 | 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 →