Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against an assessment order under Sections 144/147 for AY 2010-11. The reopening was based on reasons stating that the return for AY 2010-11, supposedly filed on 14.01.2011, lacked explanation for cash transactions.
Held
The Tribunal found that the return filed on 14.01.2011 was for AY 2009-10, and the actual return for AY 2010-11 was filed on 24.03.2011. This error demonstrated non-application of mind by the AO in recording reasons, leading to a wrongful assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147.
Key Issues
Whether the reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act for AY 2010-11 was valid when the reasons recorded by the AO were based on incorrect facts regarding the assessee's return filing for the relevant assessment year, indicating non-application of mind.
Sections Cited
144, 147
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES : E : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI M. BALAGANESH & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA
Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mohd. Imran, Vs Income-tax Officer, C/o M/s RRA TAXINDIA, Ward-3(2), D-28, South Extension Part-I, Bulandshahr. New Delhi. PAN: AAPPI3263A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Somil Agarwal, Advocate & Shri Shery Jain, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 19.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 21.03.2025 ORDER
PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:
This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order dated 31.07.2019 of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Ghaziabad (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ‘FAA’) in Appeal No.376188511270118 arising out of the appeal before it against the order dated 27.12.2017 passed u/s 144/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by the ITO, Ward 3(2), Bulandshahr (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO).
On hearing both the sides, we find that the assessee is primarily challenging the impugned orders on the basis of alleged wrongful assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act.
Although the ld. DR has defended the assumption of jurisdiction, what we find is that in the reasons recorded for reopening, the copy of which is available at pages 33-34 of the paper book, the AO has mentioned the fact that the return of the assessee which was filed on 14.01.2011 was examined to conclude that the same did not have the explanation of the assessee of the alleged cash transactions reported in AIR information.
Now, as a matter of fact, for the impugned assessment year 2010-11, the return has been filed on 24th March, 2011 and not on 14.01.2011. At the same time, it is established that the return filed on 14.01.2011 pertained to the AY 2009-10. The copy of acknowledgement is available at page 35 of the paper book and the ld. AR has sufficiently established on the basis of the certified copy of the same available at page 36 of the paper book that vide receipt No.0301026942, the assessee’s return for AY 2009-10 was filed on 14th January, 2011. Thus, where the reasons as recorded reveal that the return for the relevant year 2010-11 was not even taken cognizance of, then, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that there was utter non-application of mind in recording the reasons and even the approval so granted. The reasons are not only narration of information, but, on its face reflect non application of mind. Where a fact so important as to which return of the assessee was considered is 2