Loading judgment…
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.
Held
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.
Key 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?
Sections Cited
147, 143(3), 1961
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.