MANSOOR BAITHA,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 62 (1) - JAO, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8829/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 January 2026AY 2017-18Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)1 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 section 148 notice was signed on 31.03.2021 but issued on 01.04.2021, and delivered on 01.04.2021 AM. This timing meant the proceedings were neither initiated under the "old" scheme before 01.04.2021 nor under the "new" scheme. Therefore, the reopening was found to be without merit.

What were the facts?

The assessee's twin appeals for AY 2017-18 arose against orders passed under section 147/144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeals were filed with a delay of 26 and 29 days, respectively, which was condoned. The core issue revolved around the initiation of reassessment proceedings under the "old" scheme.

What were the issues?

Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were validly conducted considering the timing of the notice issuance?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

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

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

Hearing: 27.01.2026Pronounced: 27.01.2026

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 8828/Del/2025
ITA No. 8829/Del/2025

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

ORDER These assessee’s twin appeals for Assessment Year 2017- 18 arise against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order Nos. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1080998632(1) & 1080998762(1) dated 22.09.2025, in proceedings u/s 147/144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), respectively.

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused.

3.

Delay of 26 days (ITA No. 8828/Del/2025) and 29 days (ITA No. 8828/Del/2025) in filing of the twin appeals are condoned in the larger interest of justice in light of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

4.

Next comes the first and foremost issue between the parties. It emerges at the outset that going by the learned assessing authority’s twin order(s) for A.Y. 2017-18 herein that it had initiated section 148 proceedings; under the “old” scheme vide notice signed on 31.03.2021 which was admittedly issued on 01.04.2021 at 12:47:47 and delivered at 12:47:53 AM. Meaning thereby that neither the impugned proceedings have been initiated on or before 01.04.2021 under the “old” scheme nor as per the “new” scheme as the case may be, going by Suman Jeet Agarwal Vs. ITO (2022) 143 taxmann.com 11 (Del.). This being the clinching factual position, I find no merit in the impugned reopening(s) which stand quashed in very terms therefore. The Revenue’s vehement contentions in support thereof are hereby rejected.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →