Loading judgment…
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.
Held
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.
Key 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?
Sections Cited
147, 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
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.
Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused.
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).
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.