D.A.V. EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-2, CHENNAI

ITA 1669/CHNY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 January 2026AY 2017-1852 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's grounds concerning the validity of reassessment proceedings for AY 2014-15 and AY 2017-18. For AY 2014-15, the Tribunal found that the notice under section 148 was issued beyond the period of limitation prescribed by the first proviso to section 147, as the original assessment was completed on 03.12.2016 and the notice was issued on 31.03.2021. The Tribunal also noted that the Assessing Officer failed to provide the actual reasons recorded for reopening, which is a procedural lapse. Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the reassessment was based on a 'change of opinion' and quashed the reassessment order. For AY 2017-18, the Tribunal held that the issuance of a notice under section 148 was not maintainable because the assessment proceedings were still pending before the Assessing Officer, following the decisions in Trustees of H.E.N. the Nizam’s Supplemental Family Trust v. CIT and K.M. Pachayappan. The reassessment order for AY 2017-18 was consequently quashed. For AY 2018-19, the Tribunal, finding the facts and circumstances identical to AY 2015-16, held that the assessee was entitled to claim exemption under section 11 of the Act, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order and deleting the addition. No finding was given on the merits for AY 2017-18 due to the quashing of the reassessment order on legal grounds.

What were the facts?

The assessee, D.A.V. Educational Trust, filed appeals against orders dated 05.04.2024 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, for assessment years (AY) 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18, and 2018-19. The appeals were consolidated due to similar issues and facts. For AY 2014-15, the assessee challenged the validity of a reassessment order under section 147 read with section 144B. The original assessment under section 143(3) was completed on 03.12.2016, accepting the returned NIL income claimed under section 11. A notice under section 148 was issued on 31.03.2021. For AY 2017-18, the reassessment order dated 25.03.2021 under section 147 was challenged. For AY 2018-19, the assessee challenged the confirmation of denial of exemption under section 11 by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated by issuing a notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 31.03.2021 for AY 2014-15 are barred by limitation under the first proviso to section 147, given that the original assessment was completed on 03.12.2016 and the notice was issued beyond four years from the end of the assessment year (31.03.2015)? 2. Whether the reassessment order for AY 2014-15 is invalid due to the Assessing Officer's failure to furnish the actual reasons recorded for reopening, instead providing only a gist, thereby depriving the assessee of the opportunity to object, as per the principles laid down in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO? 3. Whether the reassessment for AY 2014-15 is vitiated by a 'change of opinion' as the Assessing Officer had previously accepted the assessee's eligibility for exemption under section 11 after considering all material facts during the original scrutiny assessment? 4. Whether the reassessment proceedings for AY 2017-18 are valid, considering the pendency of the assessment proceedings initiated by a revised return filed under section 139(5) when the notice under section 148 was issued? 5. Whether the assessee is entitled to claim exemption under section 11 of the Act for AY 2018-19, given that the facts and circumstances are identical to AY 2015-16, where the Tribunal held in favour of the assessee? Assessee's Contentions: The reopening is barred by limitation as the notice under section 148 was issued beyond four years. The reassessment order is illegal for not providing actual reasons recorded and for being based on a 'change of opinion'. For AY 2017-18, the reassessment is invalid due to the pendency of assessment proceedings. For AY 2018-19, exemption under section 11 should be allowed based on previous year's findings. Revenue's Contentions: The reopening beyond four years is permissible if income escaped assessment due to the assessee's failure to disclose material facts. The assessee did not disclose its activities fully and truly.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B,Section 11,Section 148,Section 143(3),Section 139(1),Section 139(5),Section 143(2),Section 153,Section 119(2)(b),Section 142(1),Section 2(15)

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.

Before: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadish

Hearing: 28.10.2025Pronounced: 21.01.2026

PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

These four appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the orders all dated 05.04.2024 passed by the Id. Commissioner of Income

Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment years 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 and 2018-19. 2. Since, the issues raised in these appeals are similar based on the same identical facts, with the

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →