SANGEETA SHARMA,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-29(1), DELHI

ITA 7605/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 September 2026AY 2012-1312 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was bad in law. The original assessment for AY 2012-13 was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act on January 28, 2015. The notice under Section 148 was issued on March 31, 2019, which is beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The first proviso to Section 147 of the Act stipulates that no action can be taken under Section 147 after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year unless income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment due to the assessee's failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts. The Revenue failed to establish any such failure on the part of the assessee. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Foramer France, which affirmed that if the original assessment was under Section 143(3) and the reopening is beyond four years, the notice under Section 148 is illegal if there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. Consequently, the reopening was quashed, and the jurisdictional issue was decided in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal did not adjudicate the issues on merits as the reopening was quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Ms. Sangeeta Sharma, is in appeal against the order of the CIT(A), Delhi-31, which upheld the reassessment framed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-29(1), Delhi for Assessment Year 2012-13. The original assessment under Section 143(3) was completed on January 28, 2015, accepting the returned income after scrutiny, including details of share investments and dividend income. Subsequently, a notice under Section 148 was issued on March 31, 2019, leading to a reassessment with an addition of ₹9,91,50,000. The reassessment was based on information from the Investigation Wing regarding the sale of 7,00,000 shares of M/s Mahadev Stock Broking Company Limited (later M/s Hum Tum Builders Ltd.) to Shri Rajesh Kumar for ₹9,73,00,000, which was allegedly received in cash. The assessee contended that the reassessment was invalid as it was a change of opinion and beyond the prescribed time limit.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is valid, considering the original assessment was completed under Section 143(3) and the notice was issued more than four years after the end of the relevant assessment year, and if this amounts to a change of opinion? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, turning on Section 147 and Section 148). Assessee's contentions: The reassessment is bad in law and invalid because the notice under Section 148 was issued on a matter already covered in the original assessment, constituting a mere change of opinion. The CIT(A) erred in sustaining the AO's action as the original assessment order was not determinative of whether it was a case of change of opinion. The assessee relied on the principle that if the original assessment was under Section 143(3), reassessment beyond four years is invalid unless there was a failure to disclose material facts. Revenue's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH-E : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY

For Appellant: Shri Ruchesh Sinha, Ms. Monalisa Maity, Advocates
For Respondent: Shri Tarun Sharda, Senior DR
Hearing: 04.08.2026Pronounced: 28.09.2026

Per Mahavir Singh, Vice President:

This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of learned CIT(A), Delhi-31 in appeal No.CIT(A), Delhi-10/10905/2019-20, order dated 19% August, 2025. The reassessment was framed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-29(1), Delhi for the assessment year 2012-13 under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) vide order dated 21%t December, 2019. 2. The first issue raised by the assessee is that the assumption of juri iction by the Assessing Of

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →