ITISHA GOYAL,HARIDWAR vs. DY CIT, HARIDWAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 93/DDN/2023Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 April 2025AY 2012-2013Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid as it was initiated beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year and was hit by the first proviso to Section 147. The Assessing Officer's failure to disclose all material facts truly and fully in the original assessment was not established.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed her return of income for AY 2012-13, and a regular assessment was completed. Later, the Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147, believing income had escaped assessment due to cash payments for capital assets. The notice for reopening was issued beyond four years from the end of the assessment year.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of the reassessment proceedings initiated beyond the four-year period stipulated in the first proviso to Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 40A(3)

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, DEHRADUN “DB” BENCH, DEHRADUN

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI M. BALAGANESH

Hearing: 18.03.2025Pronounced: 23.04.2025

ORDER

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM

1.

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, 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/250/2023-24/1057415445(1), dated 26.10.2023, involving proceedings under sections 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

2.

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

3.

Next comes the first and foremost legal issue of validity of the impugned reopening of its instant appeal. The assessee had admittedly filed her return of income on 28th September, 2012 declaring income of Rs.38.63,590/-. Learned Assessing Officer undisputedly framed his section 143(3) regular assessment on 26th February, 2015 computing her total taxable income as Rs.40,13,590/-. And thereafter, he formed his reasons to belief that the assessee’s taxable income liable to be assessed as escapement which represented cash payments in acquisition of capital assets/agricultural lands amounting to Rs.1,33,00,000/-. He accordingly issued section 148 notice to her on 25.09.2017 which finally culminated in reassessment in question, dated 23.10.2018 adding the foregoing sums which stand upheld in the lower appellate proceedings as well. It is clear in this factual background that the learned Assessing Officer had initiated the impugned reopening beyond a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year and therefore hit by section 147 1st proviso. The Revenue seeks to buttress the point that given fact that the assessee had made the impugned cash payments in violation of section 40A(3) of the Act, we ought to uphold the impugned

2 | P a g e reopening. We find no reason to sustain the impugned reopening. This is for the precise reasons that the learned Assessing Officer is himself very fair in not denying the assesseee’s averments/explanation that there was no failure on her part in disclosing all the relevant facts in the former round “fully and truly” since the reopening had been initiated because of the relevant facts emerged as per the corresponding computation and books of account only, which already form part of the first-round records.

4.

Faced with this situation, we quote Hindustan Lever Limited Vs. Hindustan Lever Limited Vs. R.B. Wadkar (2004) 268 ITR 332 (Bom) settling the law in assessee’s favour and against the department that such reopening reasons have to be read on standalone basis without any scope of addition/substitution therein, as the case may be. We accordingly reject the Revenue’s vehement contention supporting the impugned reopening in very terms since as hit by section 147 1st proviso and quash the same in very terms. Ordered accordingly. The assessee’s remaining pleadings herein stand rendered academic.

5.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →