ANITA TOMAR,MEERUT vs. ITO, WARD 1(1)(1), MEERUT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6455/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 November 2025AY 2016-172 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 reopening of assessment was invalid as the notice under section 148 was issued after more than three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The exception for escaped income of Rs. 50 lakhs or more was not applicable.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 was against the CIT(A)/NFAC's order. The primary issue was the validity of the reopening of assessment initiated by the Assessing Officer.

What were the issues?

The key legal issue was whether the reopening of assessment was barred by limitation under Section 149(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 148,Section 149(1)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

For Appellant: Adv. Sh. Sanjay Malik, adv
Hearing: 25.11.2025Pronounced: 25.11.2025

Assessment Year: 2016-17 Anita Tomar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, C/o- Malik & Co. (Advisors & Ward-1(1)(1), Advocates – Since 1927), 28-A, Meerut Saket, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, Meerut PAN: BDJPK2707F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Sankalp Malik, Adv. Sh. Sanjay Malik, adv. Department by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 25.11.2025 Date of pronouncement 25.11.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2016-17, 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/250/2025-26/1080323022(1), dated 03.09.2025 involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

It emerges at the outset during the course of hearing that there arises the first and foremost issue of validity of the impugned reopening itself since the learned assessing authority had issued

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →