MAYA DEVI,MEERUT vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), 176, VILLAGE-ALIPUR JIJMANA, POST PHAPHUDA, HAPUR ROAD, MEERUT.MEERUT, MERRUT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3538/DEL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 November 2024AY 2010-11Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)3 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's reopening reasons did not quantify the assessee's taxable income that allegedly escaped assessment, a critical flaw. Citing Mahesh Kumar Gupta Vs. CIT, the Tribunal held that such a failure in initiating the reassessment mechanism under sections 148/147 is not sustainable in law. Consequently, the impugned reopening was quashed, and the appeal was allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 against an order from the CIT(A)-NFAC, which arose from reassessment proceedings under sections 143(3) and 147 of the Income-tax Act. The assessee did not appear, leading to an ex-parte proceeding. The core issue concerned the validity of the reopening reasons.

What were the issues?

Whether reassessment proceedings initiated under sections 147/148 are sustainable if the reopening reasons do not quantify the income alleged to have escaped assessment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 11.11.2024Pronounced: 25.11.2024

Date of hearing 11.11.2024 Date of pronouncement 25.11.2024 ORDER

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM

1.

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2010-11, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)-NFAC”] Delhi’s DIN and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1057152883(1), dated 17.10.2023, involving proceedings under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

2.

Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte against him.

3.

It emerges during the course of hearing that with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that the learned Assessing Officer’s reopening reasons forming part of his assessment discussed in para 1, dated 29.12.207; not even quantified the assessee’s taxable income liable to be assessed which escaped assessment.

4.

This being the clinching fact going unrebutted from the Revenue side. I hereby quote Mahesh Kumar Gupta Vs. CIT (2013) 33 taxmann.com 403 (Ald) that such a failure on the learned Assessing Officer’s part while setting into motion under section 148/147 mechanism is not sustainable in law. The impugned reopening accordingly stands quashed. 5. All other pleadings on merits stand rendered academic. 6. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 25th November, 2024 Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 25th November, 2024. RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2 | P a g e

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →