ANITA MITTAL,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 28(5), DELHI, NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's challenges to the jurisdiction and reassessment proceedings. Recognizing that justice would be served by a thorough examination, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee challenged the reassessment proceedings, citing several grounds including invalid jurisdiction and improper issuance of notices. The Assessing Officer had made an addition of Rs. 1,38,58,924/- based on information from the Investigation Wing. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to the assessee's non-appearance.
What were the issues?
Validity of reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147/148 due to alleged jurisdictional and procedural defects, and the legality of additions made to the assessee's income.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 147,Section 148,Section 144,Section 151,Section 234C,Section 234D
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH, ‘G’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA&
ORDER PER AMITABH SHUKLA, AM,
The captioned appeal has been preferred by the assessee against order dated 17.10.2025 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)’] arising out of assessment order dated 20.03.2023 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 pertaining to Assessment Year 2015-16. The word ‘Act’ herein this order would mean Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-
1. That the notice under section 148 of the Act was issued beyond the prescribed limitation, and therefore in the absence of a valid assumption of jurisdiction by the assessing officer, the reassessment proceedings are bad in law.
That there was no valid assumption of jurisdiction under section 147/148 of the Act, as the notice under Section 148, along with subsequent statutory notices, were issued by the jurisdictional assessing officer instead of the faceless assessing officer, and consequently the reassessment so framed in furtherance of such invalid assumption of jurisdiction is bad in law.
That the mandatory sanction, as contemplated under section 151 of the Act, accorded by the higher authority was mechanical, therefore the assumption of jurisdiction under section 147/148 of the Act r.w.s. 151 and consequently the reassessment so framed in furtherance of such invalid assumption of jurisdiction is invalid and bad in law.
That there was no reason to believe as contemplated under section 147/148 of the Act and consequently the issuance of notice under section 148 to commence the reassessment proceedings is also invalid and bad in law.
5. That the rejection of the books of accounts by the assessing officer, the estimation of net profit at 5 Percent of the turnover shown in ITR, amounting to Rs. 1,46,37,750/-, and the consequent addition of Rs. 1,38,58,924/- to the income of the appellant is illegal, arbitrary and unjust.
6. That the appellant denies her liability to pay interest under section 234C and 234D.
3. The assessee was called absent.
4. The ld. DR took us through the brief factual matrix of the case. The ld. AO had made an addition of Rs.1,38,58,924/- on account of some information coming from Investigation Wing of Jammu & Kashmir. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the premises of nonappearance.
We have considered the facts of the case in the light of material available on records. We have noted that the appellant apart from Page 2 of 4 challenging the reassessment proceedings on the basis of merits of the case has also raised legal challenge qua insufficiency of jurisdiction with the assessing authority. We are conscious of the fact that no litigant benefits by non-prosecuting his/her case. Be that as it may be, we are of the view that ends of justice would be met if the matter is remitted back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for readjudication. Accordingly, we remit the file to the ld. CIT(A) for readjudication de novo, in accordance with law and after passing a speaking order. The assessee shall comply with the statutory notices and any non-compliance would be adversely viewed. The appeal of the assessee is therefore allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 08th April, 2026.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Shri Yaras Suresh Babu Prabhu Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
