THE GREAT GETSBY CLUB OF INDIA,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 2(3), DELHI

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण
धिल्ली पीठ “एस एम सी”, धिल्ली
श्री धिकास अिस्थी, न्याधयक सिस्य

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH “SMC”, DELHI
BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
आअसं.7144/धिल्ली/2025 (नि.व. 2014-15)
The Great Getsby Club of India,
C/o Kapil Goel, Advocate, G-8/5 Sector-11,
Rohini Opposite SGS Apartment, Delhi 110085
PAN: AAATT-3926-G

...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant
बिाम Vs.

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3),
24th Floor, E-2 Block Pratayksh Kar Bhawan,
Civic Centre, J L Nehru Marg, New Delhi 110002
..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent

अपीलार्थी द्वारा/Appellant by : Dr. Kapil Goel, Advocate (Through VC)
प्रधििािीद्वारा/Respondent by : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date of hearing

:
16/12/2025

घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date of pronouncement
:
16/12/2025

आदेश/ORDER

PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-29, New Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 16.10.2025, for the Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The assessee in appeal has assailed validity of the notice issued u/s.148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) on the ground that the reasons recorded for issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act and approval from the Competent Authority is after issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act. The ld. Counsel pointed that notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 19.01.2016 whereas, the 2
reasons were recorded on 17.03.2016 and the approval of same was received from the JCIT on same date i.e. 17.03.2016. 3. Submissions made by rival sides heard. A perusal of impugned order reveals that the assessee had raised this issue before the First Appellate Authority. The CIT(A) sought remand report from the AO but no finding was given by the CIT(A) on the issue. The fact that the notice u/s.148 of the Act dated 19.01.2016 was issued prior to seeking approval from the Competent Authority and recording of reasons is unrebutted. Thus, it is evident that on the date of issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act, the AO had no subjective satisfaction or reasons to reopen assessment.
The assessment cannot be reopened without there being any reasons or material satisfaction of the AO to invoke the provisions of section 148/147 of the Act. It is a well settled legal principle that reopening of assessment cannot be done in a causal routine manner. The AO has to record satisfaction/reasons before initiating reopening of assessment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of PCIT vs. Tata Sons Ltd. 449 ITR 166, upholding the view of High Court where reasons to reopen the assessment were recorded after issuance of the reassessment notice held that, when the notice for reassessment was issued, there was no subjective satisfaction, hence, unsustainable.
4. Thus, in light of the facts of the case and the settled legal principle, I hold the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act dated 19.01.2016 without juri iction.
Consequently, the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are vitiated and are quashed.

3
5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on Tue ay the 16th day of December,
2025. (VIKAS AWASTHY)

न्यानयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER
धिल्ली/Delhi, ददिांक/Dated 31/12/2025

NV/-
प्रतिलिपि अग्रेपििCopy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलार्थी/The Appellant ,
2. प्रनिवादी/ The Respondent.
3. The PCIT/CIT(A)
4. ववभागीय प्रनिनिथि, आय.अपी.अथि., दिल्ली /DR, ITAT, धिल्ली
5. गार्ड फाइल/Guard file.

BY ORDER,
////

(Asstt.