INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-27(1), NEW DELHI, I.P. ESTATE vs. XELENTIX SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, JANAKPURI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6628/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 June 2026AY 2013-143 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that the reassessment notice was time-barred. Consequently, the assessment framed based on that notice was considered bad in law.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order which quashed a reassessment. The CIT(A) had held that the notice issued under Section 148 was time-barred.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the notice issued under Section 148 for reassessment was time-barred, rendering the subsequent assessment invalid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD & SHRI RENU JAUHRI

Hearing: 22.04.2026Pronounced: 05.06.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.6628/Del/2025 [Assessment Year: 2013-14] ITO Vs. Xelentix Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Ward- 27 (1) B-21A, Basement Jaina Tower- New Delhi 02, District Centre, New Delhi PAN No.AADCC0399L Appellant Respondent Appellant by Sh. Rakesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Respondent by None Date of Hearing 22.04.2026 Date of Pronouncement 05.06.2026 ORDER PER C.N. PRASAD, J.M. This appeal is filed by the revenue against order of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 14.08.2025 for the A.Y. 2013-14.

2.

In this appeal the revenue has challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in quashing the reassessment framed for A.Y. 2013-14 on the ground the notice u/s.148 of the Act dated 26.07.2022 is time barred in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal (469 ITR 46) and Union of India Vs. Ashish Aggarwal (444 ITR 1).

3.

Ld. DR has placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below.

4.

Inspite of issue of notice none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment application was moved. Since the issue in appeal is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal (supra), this appeal is disposed of after hearing the Ld. DR.

5.

On perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) we observed that the assessment was quashed by the Ld. CIT(A) for the reason that the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act was barred by limitation and consequently assessment framed pursuant to the such notice is bad in law. We see no infirmity in the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). Ground raised by the revenue are rejected.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 05.06.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [RENU JAUHRI] [C.N. PRASAD] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 05.06.2026

NEHA , Sr.P.S.* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. PCIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →