Loading judgment…
Facts
The appeals involve three assessees, who are partners in a firm. The assessment year for all appeals is 2006-07. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the cases beyond the prescribed time limit, citing a decision in the case of the firm.
Held
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was time-barred as the notice u/s 148 was issued beyond 6 years from the relevant assessment year. The condonation of delay was granted, and the appeals were allowed on the legal ground of limitation.
Key Issues
Whether the reopening of assessment beyond the period of 6 years from the end of the relevant assessment year is valid and sustainable in law.
Sections Cited
144, 147, 148, 34(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AGRA
Before: HON’BLE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
(िनधा�रणवष� / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Shri Sukrant Yadav Income-tax Officer, बनाम/ Krishna Nagar, Bharthana Ward 2(2)(5), Etawah. Vs. Road, Etawah (UP)-206001. �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AMEPY-2777-Q (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) : (� थ� / Respondent) अपीलाथ�कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Sh. Gaurav Goyal, CA – Ld. AR � थ�कीओरसे/Respondent by : Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 19-02-2025 / 20-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Facts as well as issues in captioned appeals for Assessment Year (AY) 2006-07 are quite identical. The three assessees are partners in a firm by the name M/s Rajeev Kumar Contractor. First, we take up appeal which arises out of an order passed by of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Agra [CIT(A)] on 30-11-2018 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 30-11-2017. The registry has noted delay of 5 years and 3 months, the condonation of which has been sought by Ld. AR on the strength of condonation petition which is supported by an affidavit of the earlier counsel of the assessee. The Ld. AR also stated that the assessment is time barred and therefore, liable to be quashed. The Ld. Sr. DR opposed the admission of the appeal. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case record, the appeal is disposed-off as under.
Upon perusal of opening paragraph of assessment order, it could be seen that the assessee’s case was reopened vide notice u/s 148 dated 02-11-2016 which is beyond 6 years from AY 2006-07. Apparently, the Ld. AO has reopened the case of the assessee by interpreting the decision of Tribunal in the case of firm (M/s Rajeev Kumar Contractor) in which the assessee acted as a partner. Initially, the addition of capital introduction was made in the hands of the firm which was deleted by the Tribunal vide order dated 04-02-2016 with the observation that Ld. AO would be at liberty to take this matter in the case of individual partners in accordance with the law. This is very clear from these observations that the case could be reopened only if permitted under law. The undisputed fact that emerges is that the notice has been issued beyond 6 years and therefore, the assessment is clearly time barred. Under these circumstances, we condone the delay in the appeal and allow the legal ground thus raised by the assessee. The assessment stand quashed on this ground alone. Delving into other grounds has been rendered mere academic in nature. The appeal stand allowed.
Facts in other two appeals quite similar. Applying the same reasoning, the assessment for both these assessees stand quashed. Both these assessees succeed on legal ground. 4. All the appeals stand allowed. Order pronounced u/r 34(4) of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.