INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-13(3), CR BUILDING vs. JMV INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED , TRI NAGAR, NEW DELHI

ITA 8487/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 January 2026AY 2012-133 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that a regular assessment under section 143(3) had already been completed after scrutiny of share application money. As this fact was undisputed by the Revenue, the Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A) that the reopening constituted a mere change of opinion.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed the CIT(A)'s decision regarding assessment year 2012-13, which involved proceedings under section 143(3). The core grievance was the CIT(A)'s finding that the assessment reopening was legally unsustainable.

What were the issues?

Whether the reopening of assessment, undertaken after a regular assessment under section 143(3), was based on a change of opinion and hence invalid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: "SMC" NEW DELHI

BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No.8487/Del/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13

Assessee by | Shri Gaurav Jain, Adv. Shri Tarun Chanana, Adv. Department by | Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing | 27.01.2026 Date of pronouncement | 27.01.2026

ORDER

This Revenue's appeal for assessment year 2012-13, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the "CIT(A)/NFAC"], Delhi's DIN & Order No:ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1081655145(1), dated 13.10.2025 involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

It emerges during the course of haring that the Revenue/appellant is aggrieved against the CIT(A)'s action in lower appellate discussion holding the impugned reopening as not sustainable in law being in the nature of mere change of

opinion going by CIT vs Kelvinator India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 161

That being the case, the tribunal hereby notices from the

perusal of the case records that the assessing authority had in

fact framed its regular assessment under section 143(3) of the

Act on 05.11.2014 after examining the assessee's share

application money received from M/s Mithinlanchal Investment

and Finance Ltd. going by information/enquiries u/s 133(6) of

the Act dated 12.09.2024 (page -151 of the paper book). This

clinching fact is unrebutted from the Revenue side. I therefore

hold in this factual backdrop that the CIT(A)'s lower discussion

has already quashed the impugned reopening as a mere change

of opinion which does not call for any interference.

The Revenue's appeal is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 27th January, 2026.

Sd/-

(SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated: 27th January, 2026.

f{x~{tÜ f{x~{tÜ

Copy forwarded to:

- 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent - 3. CIT

- 4. CIT(A) - 5. DR

Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →