SH. MANUJENDRA SHAH,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6080/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 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 held that the reasons recorded for assuming jurisdiction under Section 147/148 were vitiated due to non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the assessment order was deemed void.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2012-13. The reasons recorded for reassessment were similar to those for the preceding assessment year, AY 2011-12.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the Assessing Officer validly assumed jurisdiction for reassessment under Section 147/148, given the alleged defects in the reasons recorded.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, DELHI

Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA&

For Appellant: Adv. Sh. Saksham Agarwal, CA
For Respondent: Ms. Kirti Sankratyayan, CIT, DR
Hearing: 13.04.2026Pronounced: 03.06.2026

P a g e | 1 ITA No.6080/Del/2025 Sh. Manujendra Shah (AY: 2012-13) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.6080/Del/2025 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Sh. Manujendra Shah Vs. ACIT, Circle-52(1) No. 5. Bhagwan Dass New Delhi – 110002 Road, Supreme Court, New Delhi – 110001 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: ABMPS6821N Appellant .. Respondent

Appellant by : Sh. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Sh. Saksham Agarwal, CA, Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv. Respondent by : Ms. Kirti Sankratyayan, CIT, DR

Date of Hearing 13.04.2026 Date of Pronouncement 03.06.2026 O R D E R PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:

This appeal is preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 17.09.2025 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-31, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the First Appellate Authority or ‘the ld. FAA’ for

P a g e | 2 ITA No.6080/Del/2025 Sh. Manujendra Shah (AY: 2012-13) short) in DIN & Order No: ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1080839372(1) arising out of the assessment order dated 25.12.2019 u/s 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed by ACIT, Ward-52(1), for AY: 2012-13.

2.

On hearing both sides we find that ld. Counsel for the assesse has primarily questioned the assumption of jurisdiction on the basis of reasons required to be recorded for the purpose of assessment u/s 147/148 of the Act being vitiated and ld. DR has defended the same by submitting that the reasons are illustrative and have all the relevant facts.

3.

We find from the submissions that in regard to AY: 2011-12 which happens to be the preceding Assessment Year similar plea was raised on behalf of the assesse before Hon’ble Delhi High Court by way of Writ Petition (C) 12677/2018 and by order dated 18.07.2023, Hon’ble High Court had observed that the reasons as recorded depict non-application of mind by assessing officer, both with regard to provisions which are applicable in the instant case and also insofar as his failure to secure the material that was available with the DCIT in arriving at the market value of the land as on 01.04.1981, which, as noticed form basis of cost of acquisition.

P a g e | 3 ITA No.6080/Del/2025 Sh. Manujendra Shah (AY: 2012-13) 4. Copy of reasons recorded in present assessment year are provided at page No. 10-14 of the paper book and ld. Counsel has successfully demonstrated that the reasons as stand recorded in AY: 2012-13 are similar in content and substance which have been examined by Hon’ble High Court in regard to AY: 2011-12. That being the state of affairs, we are inclined to sustain the ground No.1 and consequently hold that assumption of jurisdiction for assessment u/s 147/148 of the Act is vitiated and consequential assessment order is void. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed with a consequence to follow as above.

Order pronounced in the open court on 03.06.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (Amitabh Shukla) (Anubhav Sharma) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated 03.06.2026 Rohit, Sr. PS

P a g e | 4 ITA No.6080/Del/2025 Sh. Manujendra Shah (AY: 2012-13) 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 →