M/S DEPENDABLE TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 7(1), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7257/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 April 2026AY 2011-1210 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 reassessments were invalid because the Assessing Officer failed to attribute the assessee's failure to file particulars fully and truly, which is mandatory for reopening beyond four years. Consequently, the reassessments were quashed.

What were the facts?

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) heard appeals concerning assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13. The Assessing Officer had initiated reassessments regarding share application money received from M/s Concise Exim Private Limited, amounting to Rs. 12,00,00,000/- and Rs. 1,10,00,000/-.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of the reassessment proceedings initiated beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The Tribunal also considered whether the Assessing Officer had properly recorded reasons for reopening.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA

For Appellant: CA Sh. Ankur Aggarwal, CA
Hearing: 22.04.2026Pronounced: 22.04.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘C’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 7128/Del/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s Classic Transportation Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Private Limited Income Tax Cabin No. 1, 1205, 89- Central Circle-25 Hemkunth Chamber, ARA Centre, Jhandewalan Nehru Place Extension New Delhi- 19 New Delhi-55 PAN/TAN: AAACC4816B (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No. 7257/Del/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s Dependable Transport Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(1) Private Limited C.R. Building 222, 2nd Floor, Hemkunth New Delhi- 02 Chamber, 89, Nehru Place New Delhi- 19 PAN/TAN: AACCD0468Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by Sh. Ashwani Kumar, CA Sh. Ankur Aggarwal, CA Department by Sh. Om Prakash Sr. DR

Date of hearing 22.04.2026 Date of pronouncement 22.04.2026 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM Both these assessees M/s Classic Transportation Private Limited and M/s Dependable Transport Private Limited; have filed

ITA No.7128 & 7257/Del/2025 their instant as many appeals ITA Nos. 7128 & 7257/Del/2025 against CIT(A)-29, New Delhi’s & CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s twin orders 17th & 23rd September, 2025 in case no. 10849/2019-20 & DIN/order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1081037574(1) for assessment years A.Y. 2012-13 & 2011-12, involving proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, respectively. Heard both the parties. Case files perused.

2.

We notice at the outset during the course of hearing that the learned departmental authorities had initiated the impugned twin reopenings in the assessee’s respective cases regarding the share application money(ies) mounting to Rs. 12,00,00,000/- and 1,10,00,000/-; respectively coming from M/s Concise Exim Private Limited, which are sought to be treated as unexplained cash credits in the corresponding reassessments as upheld in the lower appellate discussion(s).

3.

It is in this factual backdrop that the learned counsel first of all invites our attention to the Assessing Officer’s reopening reasons recorded in the former assessee’s appeal ITA No. 7128/Del/2025 reading as under:

2 | P a g e

ITA No.7128 & 7257/Del/2025

3 | P a g e

ITA No.7128 & 7257/Del/2025

4 | P a g e

ITA No.7128 & 7257/Del/2025

4.

We next find that the learned assessing authority in the latter assessee’s appeal ITA 7257/Del/2025 had recorded almost identical reopening reasons as follows:

5 | P a g e

ITA No.7128 & 7257/Del/2025

6 | P a g e

ITA No.7128 & 7257/Del/2025

7 | P a g e

ITA No.7128 & 7257/Del/2025

5.

It is in this factual backdrop that both these assessees raise

their first and foremost identical substantive ground/argument

challenging validity of the impugned reopening(s) itself. This is for

the precise reason that the learned Assessing Officer; be it in the

former or latter assessee’s case, had framed his “regular”

assessments on 31.03.2015 (page 80) and 31.03.2013 (page 54 )

in their respective cases u/s 143(3) of the Act. There is further no

quarrel that the learned assessing authority had thereafter

recorded the impugned reopening reasons and issued section 148

notices to both these assesses beyond this specified period of four

years form the end of the relevant assessment year(s). That being

the clinching factual position, it is crystal clear the he has nowhere

attributed the assessee’s failure in filing the relevant particulars

“fully” and “truly” in formal records which has been held as

mandatory in Hindustan Lever Ltd vs. R. B. Wadkar, ACIT (2004)

268 ITR 332 (Bom). Their lordship have settled the issue in

assessee’s favour and against the department that such a failure 8 | P a g e

ITA No.7128 & 7257/Del/2025 indeed vitiates the entire reopening itself since there is no scope

of any addition, substitution or deletion in the reopening reasons

recorded at a later stage which ought to be read on standalone

basis. We thus reject the learned CIT(DR) vehement contention

supporting both these re-openings to quash the same in very

terms.

6.

Mr. Ashwini Kumar next draws our attention to pages 103 to 106 in the latter assessee’s appeal ITA No. 7257/Del/2025 that the learned departmental authorities had framed even a regular assessment in M/s Concise Exim Private Limited cases on 07.03.2024 for the very assessment year A.Y. 2011-12; and, therefore, once the same is considered in light of the supportive evidences, it is very much a genuine entity which could not have been treated as that engaged in providing accommodation entries. We are of the considered view that once we shall quashed the impugned twin reopenings itself, there is hardly much a need for us anymore to delve with the relevant factual matrix at length. All other issues are hereby rendered academic in very terms.

9 | P a g e

ITA No.7128 & 7257/Del/2025 7. These twin assessee’s as many appeals ITA No. 7128 & 7257/Del/2025 are allowed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.

Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd April, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (NAVEEN CHANDRA) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 28.04.2026 Pooja Mittal/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

10 | 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 →