AITA POLYMERS (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 2(1), DELHI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the reopening initiated by the ITO was not sustainable in law. This was because the assessee, being a corporate entity declaring income of Rs. 30 lakh or more, should have been assessed by a Deputy or Assistant Commissioner as per CBDT Circular No. 1/2011.
What were the facts?
The assessee, AITA Polymers (P) Ltd., filed its return of income for AY 2020-21 declaring income of Rs. 31,36,620. The Income Tax Officer initiated reassessment proceedings under section 147 r.w.s.143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
What were the issues?
Whether the reopening initiated by the Income Tax Officer for assessment year 2020-21 is sustainable in law given the amount of income declared and the relevant CBDT circular?
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2020-21, 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/250/2025-26/1082343702(1), dated 06.11.2025 involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s.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 hearing that the assessee/appellant raises his first and foremost legal argument/ground that the impugned reopening initiated by the ld. ITO, Ward-2(1), Delhi, vide section 148 dated 29.03.2024 is not sustainable in law since it is a corporate entity who had filed its return on 15.02.2021 declaring income of Rs.31,36,620/- (at page-1 of the paper book), whereas, the CBDT landmark Circular no.1/2011 had made it clear long back that such a corporate entity declaring income of Rs.30 lakh or more could only be assessed not by any Income Tax Officer but by Deputy or Assistant Commissioner; as the case may be.
This clinching factual position has gone unrebutted from the revenue side. I thus hold in this factual backdrop that the impugned reopening is not sustainable in law going by the CBDT’s foregoing circular. Quashed accordingly.
All other pleadings between the parties on merits etc. stand rendered academic.
The assessee’s appeal is allowed.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026