Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara&
Asstt. Year: 2011-12 DCIT, Vs Raj Kumar Kedia HUF, Central Circle-3, 59/17, Bahubali Apartment, New New Delhi-110055 Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAKHR2602D CO No. 41/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12 Raj Kumar Kedia HUF, Vs DCIT, 59/17, Bahubali Apartment, New Central Circle-3, Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110005 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAKHR2602D Assessee by : Sh. Amit Goel, CA & Sh. Pranav Yadav, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Sunil Yadav, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 20.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 20.03.2025 ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
This Revenue’s appeal and assessee’s cross objection CO No. 41/Del/2024 for Assessment Year 2011-12 arises against the CIT(A)-23, New Delhi’s in case No. CIT(A), Delhi-17/10214/2018-19 dated 03.01.2024, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
It emerges at the outset that the assessee’s cross objection CO No. 41/Del/2024 inter alia raises various legal grounds challenging validity of the impugned reopening going to the root of the matter. Learned counsel takes us to the assessee’s paper book comprising of the Assessing Officer’s reopening reasons dated 28.03.2018 (Pages 23-24) observing therein that it was not assessed either u/s 143(3) or u/s 147 of the Act after having filed the return on 20.07.2011.
We next find that the same indeed goes against the factual position on record as the learned Assessing Officer had framed his section 143(3) assessment in assessee’s case on 06.01.2014 (pages 26 to 27 in the paper book). This is indeed coupled with the fact that the learned prescribed authority approval u/s 151 of the Act has recorded it’s satisfaction as “Yes I am satisfied……………..”
Faced with this situation, we reject the Revenue’s vehement contentions supporting the impugned reopening initiated beyond a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year i.e. year 2018 by placing reliance in Hindustan Lever Ltd vs. R. B. Wadkar, ACIT (2004) 268 ITR 332 CO No. 41/Del/2024 Raj Kumar Kedia HUF (Bom) that the Assessing Officer’s reopening reasons have to be read as on standalone basis without any scope therein for further addition or substitution therein. We also deem it appropriate to conclude that the learned prescribed authority section 151 approval (supra) is also found to be mechanical in nature as per CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Ltd. (2023) 453 ITR 242 (SC). The impugned reopening forming subject matter of our adjudication is quashed in very terms. The assessee succeeds in CO No. 41/Del/2024 and the Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed.
All other pleadings on merits stand rendered academic.
To sum up, this Revenue’s appeal