HEMANT KUMAR ARORA,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-62(1), DELHI

PDF

ITA 499/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 April 2025AY 2015-16Bench: the CIT(A)/NFAC against the above rectification dated 24.06.2022. Mr. Sampath vehemently submits that the assessee in fact had set into motion the lower appellate mechanism against the original assessment order passed on 23.03.2022 than the above Section 154 rectification hereinabove dated 24.06.2022; and, therefore, the learned lower appellate authority has erred in law and on facts is not entertaining his legal grounds challenging validity of the impugned reopening. The facts on record; h3 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

Facts

The assessee's reassessment for AY 2015-16 included an addition for unexplained cash credits. The assessee filed a rectification application under Section 154 which was accepted, but subsequently appealed to the CIT(A) against this rectification order, seeking to challenge the validity of the original reopening.

Held

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s refusal to entertain grounds challenging the validity of the reassessment proceedings in an appeal filed against a Section 154 rectification. It clarified that the scope of a rectification appeal is limited, and reopening validity is independently appealable under Section 246A(1).

Key Issues

Can the validity of a Section 147 reassessment be challenged in an appeal filed solely against a rectification order under Section 154, or is such a challenge limited to an appeal against the original assessment?

Sections Cited

147, 144B, 68, 154, 246A(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment

Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

T.S. Balaram ITO v. Volkart Bros.
82 ITR 40 · 1971 · SC
382 citing

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

Hearing: 22.04.2025Pronounced: 22.04.2025

Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Hemant Kumar Arora, Vs Income Tax Officer, B-64, Lawrance Road, Indl. Area, Ward-62(1), New Delhi-110035 New Delhi-110002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ADLPA5996M Assessee by: Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 22.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 22.04.2025 ORDER

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2015-16, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1071406922(1) dated 20.12.2024, in proceedings u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

It emerges at the outset that there arises a very serious issue of maintainability of the assessee’s instant appeal itself. This is for the precise reason that the learned Assessing Officer had framed his section 147 r.w.s. 144B assessment in his case on 23.03.2022 assessing total income as Rs.48,77,713/- which included unexplained cash credits addition u/s 68 to the tune of Rs.38,46,773/-. The assessee thereafter appears to have filed Hemant Kumar Arora his rectification u/s 154 of the Act that his correct taxable income of Rs.48,77,713/- hereinabove had been wrongly taken as Rs.1,16,49,194/- whilst of determining the tax liability in question. The assessee himself is very fair in filing on record the learned Assessing Officer’s rectification dated 24.06.2022 accepting the same.

Now comes the dispute between the parties. The assessee admittedly chose to file his appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC against the above rectification dated 24.06.2022. Mr. Sampath vehemently submits that the assessee infact had set into motion the lower appellate mechanism against the original assessment order passed on 23.03.2022 than the above section 154 rectification hereinabove dated 24.06.2022; and, therefore, the learned lower appellate authority has erred in law and on facts is not entertaining his legal grounds challenging validity of the impugned reopening. The facts on record; however, speak otherwise. A perusal of the assessee’s Form 35 in the instant case file indicates that he had infact filed his lower appeal against section 154 rectification dated 24.06.2022 than the Assessing Officer’s assessment finalized on 23.03.2022. This being the clinching factual position, I hereby quote T. S. Balaram, ITO vs. Volkart Bros. (1971) 82 ITR 40 (SC) that scope of a rectification appeal u/s 154 of Act is not to be delve in detailed roving enquiries as such a Hemant Kumar Arora reopening is independently appealable u/s 246A(1) of the Act. I accordingly uphold the CIT(A)/NFAC’s lower appellate findings refusing to entertain the assessee’s legal ground(s) challenging validity of the impugned reopening u/s 154 appeal in very terms. Ordered accordingly.