BABLI SINGH,DASNA vs. ITO, WARD- 1(5), GHAZIABAD
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 Assessing Officer failed to record reasons before issuing the notice under Section 148, which is a mandatory requirement. Consequently, the notice and the proceedings initiated under it were deemed invalid.
What were the facts?
The assessee invested Rs. 1.40 crores in a house property jointly with his brother, but no return of income was filed. The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment by issuing a notice under Section 148 without recording any reasons.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the validity of the notice issued under Section 148 for reopening the assessment, specifically whether the Assessing Officer had recorded valid reasons as required by law.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘SMC’ BENCH,
Before: SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA
PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] - Ghaziabad dated 28.12.2017 pertaining to assessment year 2009-10.
The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the assessment order dated 20.12.2016 framed u/s 143(3)/144 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act']. The assessee further alleges that the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment without recording any reasons for reopening the assessment.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee has invested Rs. 1.40 crores in house property jointly with his brother. But no return of income was found to have been filed by the assessee. The Assessing Officer, accordingly, issued notice u/s 148 of the Act, which was duly served upon the assessee.
The bone of contention is as to whether this notice dated 21.03.2016 was a valid notice. Section 148(2) of the Act provides that the Assessing Officer shall, before issuing any notice under this section record his reasons for doing so. On the date of issue of notice, I do not find any reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act.
Though it appears that the Assessing Officer was making enquiry regarding source of funds for purchase of property, but in my opinion, the same cannot be considered to be a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment.
The contents of the notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act are exhibited in the body of the assessment order. Obviously, there was no question of the Assessing Officer having any basis to reasonably entertain the belief that any part of the income of the assessee had escaped assessment. In my considered opinion, the Assessing Officer is obliged to record the reasons before issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act.
The purpose of section 151 of the Act is to introduce a supervisory check over the work of the Assessing Officer, particularly, in the context of reopening of assessment. He is expected to exercise the power u/s 147 of the Act to reopen the assessment only after due application of mind. Since the statutory requirement has not been fulfilled, the notice and proceedings thereunder are held to be invalid. The assessee succeeds on this count.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed
The order is pronounced in the open court on 17.09.2018.
More judgments on Section 148
- 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
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026