RITU AGARWAL,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-60(7), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6815/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 December 2025AY 2019-20Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)2 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 held that the Assessing Officer's failure to indicate the specific income liable to be assessed that had escaped assessment, in the recorded reasons for reopening, vitiated the entire reopening proceedings. Relying on the precedent set in Amandeep Singh v. ACIT (2025), the Tribunal quashed the impugned reopening notice.

What were the facts?

Reopening proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were initiated against the assessee for Assessment Year 2019-20. The reasons for reopening were based on High Risk CRIU/VRU information from the Insight Portal, stemming from a search and seizure action under Section 132 on Omaxe Groups, where the assessee's name was found. A notice under Section 148 was issued, approved under Explanation 2 of Section 148, but without specifying the income that had escaped assessment.

What were the issues?

Whether the reopening proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are valid if the Assessing Officer fails to specify the income that has escaped assessment in the reasons recorded.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 132,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

Hearing: 23.12.2025Pronounced: 23.12.2025

Asstt. Year: 2019-20 Ritu Agarwal, Vs Income Tax Officer, C-417, Gali No. 17, Bhajanpura, Ward-60(7), Delhi-110053 New Delhi-110002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAFPA2124G Assessee by: Sh. Pranav Yadav, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Amit Shukla, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 23.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 23.12.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2019-20 arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/10881412569(1) dated 03.10.2025, in proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

It emerges during the course of hearing that the learned assessing authority in the assessee’s case had recorded the following reasons of reopening while setting into motion section 148/147 proceedings against her; reading as follows:

“In the above-mentioned case of the assessee, High Risk CRIU/VRU information through Insight Portal has been received on the basis of the search and seizure action u/s 132 of the income Tax Act, 1961 conducted on 14.03.2022 in the case of Omaxe Groups. Documents seized during the search contains information which shows that the name of assessee Ritu Agarwal(PAN:AAFPA2124G) has been found in the records Ritu Agarwal of M/s Omaxe Group covered by the search conducted on 14.03.2022, during the year under consideration. In view of the above, in accordance with the provisions of Explanation 2 of section 148, approval of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-20, may kindly be accorded to issue notice u/s 148 of the Act in the case of the Ritu Agarwal (PAN:AAFPA2124G) for the assessment year 2019-20.”

4.

That being the case, the Revenue could hardly dispute that the learned assessing authority had not even indicated as to what was the assessee’s income liable to be assessed which has escaped assessment thereby setting into motion, the impugned reopening. Case law Amandeep Singh Vs ACIT (2025) 181 taxmann.com 326 (Del.) has already settled the issue that such a failure of Assessing Officer’s part vitiates the impugned reopening itself. Quashed accordingly.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →