RAKESH KUMAR NARVAR,BULANDSHAHR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BULANDSHAHR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3947/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 June 2026AY 2016-175 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that there was insufficient fact-finding at the lower levels. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the AO for a fresh assessment, leaving the legal challenge to the assumption of jurisdiction open.

What were the facts?

The assessee purchased a property jointly with his mother for Rs. 66 lakhs. The assessment was reopened, but the assessee failed to provide any compliance or evidence to the Assessing Officer (AO). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, stating that the assessee had not contested the additions and had not provided evidence for his claimed 50% share.

What were the issues?

Whether the reopening of assessment was barred by limitation, and whether the AO had valid jurisdiction to reopen the assessment given the alleged joint ownership and the amount of investment attributable to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 149(1)(b),Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “F” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, Adv
For Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Hearing: 04.06.2026

ITA No. 3947/Del/2026 & STAY APPL. No.241/Del/2026 RAKESH KUMAR NARVAR IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.3947/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2016-17 RAKESH KUMAR NARVAR, Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, G-12, Yamunapuram, Bulandshahr, Delhi Road, Bulandshahr, Uttar Pradesh 203001. Uttar Pradesh 203001. PAN No. ACBPN0863D Appellant Respondent & STAY APPL. No.241/Del/2026 (Arising out of ITA No.3947/Del/2026) Assessment Year: 2016-17 RAKESH KUMAR NARVAR, Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, S/o Shri Juginder Singh, Delhi Road, Bulandshahr, G-12, Yamunapuram, Bulandshahr, Bulandshahr, Uttar Pradesh 203001. Uttar Pradesh 203001. PAN No. ACBPN0863D Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri P.C. Yadav, Adv. Revenue by Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 04.06.2026 Pronouncement on 04.06.2026 O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

This appeal arises from order dated 24.02.2026, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), by NFAC. In this case, the assessee is seen to have purchased a property jointly with his mother for a sum of Rs.66 lakhs. Thereafter, the assessment proceedings were reopened with a notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act being issued. It is recorded 1

ITA No. 3947/Del/2026 & STAY APPL. No.241/Del/2026 RAKESH KUMAR NARVAR in the Ld. AO’s order that there was no compliance whatsoever to as many as six notices issued by way of providing opportunity. Thereafter, aggrieved assessee approached the CIT(A) where he made detailed written submissions, including on the ground of alleged illegal assumption of jurisdiction. The legal ground of challenge was primarily on account of the fact that the entire investment in the property was Rs.66 lakhs which was equally divided between the assessee and his late mother. It was the claim that once this fact was taken into consideration then the alleged amount escaping assessment would be less than Rs.50 lakhs and thereafter there could be no reopening beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed this contention by stating that since the assessee did not file any details and evidences whatsoever before the Ld. AO hence, it was not clear as to how the assessee was determining his share at 50% of the total investment value. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A), on para 2 at page 22 of the impugned order, has also stated that the additions made by the Ld. AO have not been contested at either the assessment stage or even the appellate stage. Needless to say, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed.

1.1 Further aggrieved, the assessee has approached the ITAT with the following grounds: -

1.

“The order of CIT(A) is bad in law and on facts. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the jurisdiction of AO u/s 148 is void ab initio.

ITA No. 3947/Del/2026 & STAY APPL. No.241/Del/2026 RAKESH KUMAR NARVAR

3.

The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in affirming the jurisdiction of the AO u/s 148 ignoring that the action of the AO is barred by limitation in terms of the provisions of section 149(1)(b) in as much as the alleged investment attributable to assessee is only 35.31 lakhs. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.66,00,000/- made by the AO u/s 69 of the Act. 5. The CIT(A) has grossly erred in ignoring the relevant documentary evidence submitted by the assessee to prove the factum of joint ownership of the assessee with the mother. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, or withdraw any ground at the time of hearing.”

This case is a stay granted matter, whereby vide order in SA 2.0 No.241/Del/2026, dated 24.04.2026 a stay on recovery of demand was granted by the ITAT.

3.

Before us the Ld. AR argued that due to personal problems in the assessee’s family, as set out in detail in the request for stay of demand, the assessee could not pursue his matter before the Ld. AO and even before the Ld. CIT(A) relevant documentary evidence could not be produced. The Ld. AR stated that the main point was that if at all any income had escaped assessment then it should be 50% of Rs.66 lakhs, which would debar the Ld. AO from reopening the case after three years.

3.1 The Ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below and pointed out that in the absence of documents and necessary facts, the authorities below had no option but to take an adverse view against the assessee.

ITA No. 3947/Del/2026 & STAY APPL. No.241/Del/2026 RAKESH KUMAR NARVAR 4. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and have gone through the documents before us. It is seen that there has been no significant fact finding at the lower levels and thus, we find ourselves unable to appreciate the issues pertaining to the grounds of appeal before us. Accordingly, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and remand this matter back to the file of Ld. AO for fresh assessment. It is made clear that the legal challenge to the assumption of jurisdiction is left open for consideration by the Ld. AO on the basis of documents and evidences to be filed before him by the assessee.

5.

Since the appeal has been remanded back to the file of Ld. AO, hence, the issue of stay of demand now becomes infructuous. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 04.06.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) (SANJAY AWASTHI) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 09.06.2026 *Kavita Arora, Sr. P.S. Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 4

ITA No. 3947/Del/2026 & STAY APPL. No.241/Del/2026 RAKESH KUMAR NARVAR ITAT, NEW DELHI Sr. No. Particulars Date 1 Date of dictation of Tribunal Order 05.06.2026 2 Date on which typed draft Tribunal Order is placed before the 08.06.2026 Dictation Member 3 Date on which typed draft Tribunal Order is placed before the 09.06.2026 other Member (in the case of DB) 4 Date on which the approved draft Tribunal Order comes to the 09.06.2026 Sr. P.S. /P.S. 5 Date on which the fair Tribunal Order is placed before the 09.06.2026 Dictating Member for sign 6 Date on which the fair Order is placed before the other Member 09.06.2026 for sign (in the case of DB) 7 Date on which the signed order comes back to the Sr. P.S. /P.S 09.06.2026 for uploading on ITAT website 8 Date of uploading, if not, reason for not uploading 09.06.2026 9 Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 09.06.2026 10 Date on which order goes for xerox 11 Date on which the file goes for endorsement 12 Date on which the file goes to the Superintendent/O.S. for checking 13 Date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order 14 Date on which the file goes to dispatch section for dispatch the Tribunal Order 15 Date of dispatch of order 16 Date on which file goes to Record Room after dispatch the order

More judgments on Section 148A

All 3,543 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →