RAM CHANDAR SINGH BISTT,NEW TEHRI TEHRI GARHWAL vs. CIT (A), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 82/DDN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun29 June 2026AY 2011-123 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 reopening of assessment was invalid because the Income Tax Officer in Delhi lacked jurisdiction over the assessee's case. Consequently, all other issues became academic.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2011-12 was filed against the CIT(A)/NFAC's order. The primary issue was the validity of the reopening of assessment initiated by an Income Tax Officer in Delhi, while the assessee's Assessing Officer was in Uttarakhand.

What were the issues?

The key legal issue was the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 147 when the assessee's regular Assessing Officer was located in a different jurisdiction.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DEHRADUN BENCH “SMC”, DEHRADUN

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

Hearing: 25.05.2026Pronounced: 29.06.2026

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM: This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2011-12, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1047267790(1), dated 14.11.2022 involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

ITA No.82/DDN/2026

Heard both the parties. Case file perused. Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte. 2 For the reasons stated in the assessee’s condonation averments, delay of 1105 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC). 3. It next transpires from a perusal of the case records that the assessee has raised his first and foremost legal ground/issue of validity of the impugned reopening itself. This is for the precise reason that his Assessing Officer all along has been the ITO, Tehri, Uttarakhand; whereas, it was learned ITO, Ward-57(2), Delhi, who had set into motion section 148/147 proceedings in his case forming subject matter of challenge before us. We accorded ample opportunity to the department wherein the foregoing clinching fact has gone unrebutted from its side. We thus conclude in this factual backdrop that the impugned reopening itself is a non-est one in the eyes of law once Income Tax Officer, Delhi did not have any jurisdiction in the assessee’s case. Ordered accordingly.

2 | P a g e

ITA No.82/DDN/2026

All other remaining pleadings between the parties stand rendered academic. 4. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 29.06.2026 Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH AGARWAL) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 29th June, 2026. RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

3 | 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 →