TRILOK SAINI,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 28(5), E- BLOCK CIVIC CENTRE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4553/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 November 2026AY 2011-124 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 noted that the assessment for AY 2011-12 was made on a protective basis to avoid revenue leakage, adding Rs. 13,09,988/- to the taxable income because the assessee did not disclose 'Long Term Capital Gain'. The assessee's counsel submitted that since it was a protective assessment and the taxes for the same demand were already paid in the substantive assessment, the appeal should be allowed. The Tribunal, having considered the findings of the authorities below and the submissions of the assessee, found that it was indeed a protective assessment and the assessee had already paid the taxes in the substantive assessment case. Therefore, there was no reason to continue with the appeal. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal on this issue. The operative direction was to allow the appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Trilok Saini, filed an appeal against the order dated 28-05-2024 passed by the CIT(A), NFAC Delhi for Assessment Year 2011-12. The appeal challenges the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147/148 and the subsequent reassessment proceedings. The original assessment was made on a protective basis, adding Rs. 13,09,988/- to the taxable income due to the non-disclosure of Long Term Capital Gain. The assessee declared an income of Rs. 1,66,925/-, while the assessed income was Rs. 14,76,910/-. The assessee contended that taxes have already been paid in the substantive assessment for the same demand.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO in issuing notice u/s 148 and assuming jurisdiction u/s 147 in the absence of the condition precedent for assumption of jurisdiction, rendering the order bad in law and void ab initio (Section 147, Section 148). 2. Whether the notice issued u/s 148 and the consequent reassessment proceedings are illegal, bad in law, and without jurisdiction due to generic, vague, factually incorrect, ill-founded, and far-fetched reasons for reopening (Section 147, Section 148). 3. Whether the CIT(A) erred in sustaining the order passed by the AO u/s 147/143(3) without appreciating that the approval granted by the PCIT under Section 151 was mechanical and ritualistic (Section 151). 4. Whether the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that no sale agreement/transfer of property took place during the relevant assessment year, and hence no income accrued or arisen, making the assessment protective (Section 147). 5. Whether the CIT(A) erred in upholding the assessed income of Rs. 14,76,910/- against the declared income of Rs. 1,66,925/- (Section 147). 6. Whether the CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 13,09,988/- on account of alleged capital gain without considering that the assessee substantiated the agreement to sale and bank statement, and that the transaction pertained to AY 2012-13 (Section 147). 7. Whether the CIT(A) erred in enhancing the income without alleging any failure on the part of the appellant in disclosing full and true facts during proceedings under Section 251(1)(a) (Section 251(1)(a)). 8. Whether the CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made by the AO based on conjecture and surmises without direct adverse material, relying only on suspicion (Section 147). Assessee's Contentions: The assessment was made on a protective basis, and taxes have already been paid in the substantive assessment. Therefore, the appeal should be allowed. Revenue's Contentions: The learned DR relied on the orders of the authorities below.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 151,Section 251(1)(a)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI

Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY

PER SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order dated 28-05-2024 passed by the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC Delhi for the Assessment Year 2011-12.

2.

The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the AO in issuing notice u/s 148 and assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 in absence of condition precedent for assumption of jurisdiction, the order passed by the AO is bad in law, void ab initio and liable to be set aside.

2.

That the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act and the consequent reassessment proceedings are illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction since the reasons to believe purportedly recorded in this case were generic, vague, factually incorrect, ill-founded, and far-fetched and did not meet the requirements for reopening of assessment u/s 147 r.w.s 148 of the Act. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the order passed by the Ld. AO u/s 147/143(3) without appreciating that the approval granted by the Ld. PCIT is mechanical and ritualistic manner under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the he learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that no sale agreement / transfer of property took place during the relevant assessment year, and hence no income could be said to have accrued or arisen to the appellant and the assessment so made is being a protective assessment. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (A) has erred both on facts and in law, in upholding the order of the AO, thereby sustaining assessed income of Rs. 14,76,910/- as against income of Rs.1,66,925/- declared by the appellant. the 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 13,09,988/- on account of alleged capital gain without consideration that appellant discharged its onus by substantiating the agreement to sale and bank statement for genuineness of the transaction and the fact is that the above transaction pertain to A.Y 2012-13 only which were assessed during the assessment year 2012-13. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in enhancing the income to the extent of Rs. 14,76,910/- without alleging any failure on the part of appellant in disclosing full and truly all primary relevant facts during the proceedings under Section 251(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 through physical mode of hearing.

8.

On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made by the AO in conjecture and surmises without there being any direct adverse material against the assessee, based only on suspicion. 9. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal.”

3.

During proceedings before us the Ld. Counsel of the assessee at the outset submitted that the assessment in this case has been made on protective basis and that the assessee has already paid taxes in the substantive assessment. The ld. CIT(A) in his order has also mentioned as under :-

“The assessment for A.Y. 2011-12 was made on a protective basis to avoid revenue leakage, adding Rs.13,09,988/- to the taxable income. The assesse did not disclose “Long Term Capital Gain” of Rs.13,09,988/- leading to an addition to the taxable income.” 4. On this finding the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that it is a protective assessment and in the substantive assessment the same demand was raised on which the assessee has already been paid required taxes. Accordingly, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee made a prayer before the Bench that the appeal of the assessee should be allowed.

5.

Per contra the ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below.

6.

We have considered the findings given by the authorities below and we have also considered the submission made by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee. We find that it is a protective assessment and the assessee has already made the payment of taxes in the substantive assessment case. Therefore, there is no reason to continue with this appeal accordingly, assessee’s appeal on this issue is allowed.

7.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 13.11.2026.

Sd/- Sd/-

[ANUBHAV SHARMA] [KRINWANT SAHAY] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 13.11.2026 NEHA, Sr.P.S.* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. PCIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →