ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S JET LITE (INDIA), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3663/DEL/2009Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 May 2026AY 2004-0512 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 ITAT upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)'s decision that the assessment was barred by limitation. The Tribunal followed its previous orders on the same issue, thus quashing the impugned assessment.

What were the facts?

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) heard cross-appeals by the Revenue and the assessee concerning the assessment year 2004-05. The Assessing Officer had framed an assessment under section 143(3) read with section 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the assessment was barred by limitation, specifically concerning the calculation of the period for completing the assessment after a special audit report.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 142(2A),Section 153

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

For Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT DR
Hearing: 16.03.2026Pronounced: 26.05.2026

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No.3663/Del/2009
ITA No. 3686/Del/2009

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.3663/Del/2009, ITA No. 3686/Del/2009 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assistant Commissioner Vs. Jet Life (India) Income Tax (Former As M/s Sahara Air Central Circle-6, Room No. Lines Ltd.) 334, ARA Centre, A-110, Road No. 5, NH-8, Jhandewalan Extn. Mahipal Pur Extn. New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AADCS4480L (Appellant) (Respondent/Cross-Objector) Assessee by None Department by Ms. Monika Singh, CIT DR

Date of hearing 16.03.2026 Date of pronouncement 26.05.2026

ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM These Revenue’s and the assessee’s cross-appeals ITA Nos. 3663 and 3686/Del/2009; for A.Y. 2004-05, arise against Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III, Delhi’s Order No. 93/08- 09, dated 17.06.2009, involving proceedings u/s 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.

Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

2.

Learned CIT(DR) takes us to Revenue’s appeal ITA 3663/Del/2009 herein raising the following substantive grounds: “ 1. The order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) is not correct in law and facts.

2.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the assessment was barred by limitation on the ground that the period of 60 days available to the Assessing Officer as per clause-(iii) of the explanation 1 to Section 153 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with the first proviso to the said Explanation should be counted from the last day of limitation u/s 153(1) and not from the last day on which the assessee is required to furnish the audit report.

3.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in annulling the assessment without considering the judgement of the Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Rajesh Kumar Vs. DCIT, IT(SS) Appeal Nos. 10 and 17 (Delhi) of 2007 dated 30/06/2007.

4.

The appellant craves leave to add. alter or amend any/all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal.

3.

We next notice that the learned CIT(A) detailed discussion has quashed the impugned section 143(3) r.w.s 142 (2A) assessment framed by the Assessing Officer on 23.08.2007; reading as under: “

”

This is what leaves the Revenue aggrieved.

4.

Learned CIT(DR)’s sole substantive argument in light of the Revenue’s second substantive ground is that the CIT(A) has not taken into consideration the tribunal’s yet another decision in Rajesh Kumar vs DCIT in IT(SS)A. She could hardly dispute that the earlier learned co-ordinate bench order’s deciding the very issue in the assessee’s case for A.Y. 1997-98 stands followed in the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion herein. There is further no material in the case records that the Revenue has succeeded on the very issue before

hon’ble higher forums as well. We thus adopt judicial consistency to uphold the learned CIT(A) detailed discussion quashing the impugned assessment as time-barred. This Revenue’s appeal ITA No. 3663/Del/2009 fails therefore.

The assessee’s cross appeal ITA No. 3686/Del/2009 raising various substantive grounds on merits stand rendered academic.

7.

This Revenue’s appeal ITA No. 3663/Del/2009 is dismissed and the assessee’s cross appeal ITA No. 3686/Del/2009 is dismissed as rendered infructuous. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.

Order pronounced in the open court on 26.05.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH AGARWAL) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 26.05.2026 Pooja Mittal/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

More judgments on Section 142(2A)

All 676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(2A) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →