NASEEMA ABDULRAUF VEKARIYA LH OF ABDULRAUF MIANAHMED VEKARIYA,HIMATNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, HIMATNAGAR, HIMATNAGAR

ITA 1030/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 September 2026AY 2015-165 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders passed under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were without jurisdiction and thus not sustainable. The reasoning was that Section 153C of the Act mandates that if seized material during a search pertains to a person other than the searched person, it should be forwarded to that person's AO. The AO of the other person must then record satisfaction that the seized material impacts the determination of total income and can proceed under Section 153C. The Tribunal noted that Sections 153A and 153C contain non-obstante clauses that give them an overriding effect over general provisions like Section 147. This view is supported by decisions of the Gujarat High Court in 'Paras Chandreshbhai Koticha vs. ITO' and the Rajasthan High Court in 'Tirupati Construction vs. ITO' and 'Shyam Sunder Khandelwal vs. ACIT'. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed. No adjudication was made on the factual matrix as it became academic.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Naseema Abdulrauf Vekariya LH of Abdulrauf Mianahmed Vekariya, filed appeals against orders passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - NFAC, Delhi, for Assessment Years (AYs) 2013-14 to 2017-18. The core issue was the validity of the reopening of assessments under Section 147 read with Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated reopening based on information received from the AO of a searched person, related to transactions with 'Mehta Finance', which was allegedly involved in providing cheques/DDs against cash. The AO considered these transactions unexplained and thus justified reopening the assessments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Assessing Officer was justified in reopening the assessment for the captioned assessment years under Section 147 read with Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequently, whether the assessment orders passed under Section 147 are sustainable? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the provisions of Sections 153A to 153C of the Act, relating to search and seizure, constitute a separate code with an overriding effect on general provisions like Section 147. The AO should have proceeded under Section 153C, making the Section 147 assessments unsustainable. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue on this issue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 153A,Section 153C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri R. Govindarajan

For Appellant: Shri Rushin Patel, AR
Hearing: 12/08/2026Pronounced: 29/09/2026

Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:

The captioned appeals have been preferred by the assessee against the separate orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Years (AYs) 2013-14 to 2017-18 respectively.

2.

The sole issue involved in all the appeals is as to whether the Assessing Officer (herei

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 →