Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A). A delay of 28 days was noted in filing the appeal, which the assessee contended was filed online in time. Additional grounds were raised concerning the reopening of assessment based on incorrect facts and the AO's failure to quote a Document Identification Number.
Held
The Tribunal held that the appeal was filed in time, condoning the delay. It also admitted the additional ground of appeal, finding it to be a purely legal issue. The Tribunal allowed the additional ground based on a similar High Court decision and kept other grounds open.
Key Issues
Whether the reopening of assessment was valid when the assessee had filed a return of income, and whether the failure to quote a DIN renders the assessment order invalid.
Sections Cited
148, 147
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES ‘B’: NEW DELHI.
(Assessment Year: 2012-13) Harish Kumar Singh, vs. ITO, Ward 3 (2), A – 70, Sector P – 3, Bulandshahr. Greater Noida – 201 308 (Uttar Pradesh). (PAN :AWKPS2738M) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY :Shri Mayank Patwari, Advocate Shri Akash Ojha, CA REVENUE BY : Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 28.08.2025 Date of Order : 21.11.2025 O R D E R
PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
The assessee has filed appeal against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short] dated 31.03.2022 for the Assessment Year 2012-13.
At the time of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the Registry has pointed out a delay of 28 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, however, the appeal filed through online on 30.05.2022 against the order of ld. CIT (A) dated 31.03.2022. He submitted that the appeal through online mode is filed in time and when the documents are submitted in hard copy on 27.06.2022, the Registry considered delay of 28 days. Accordingly, he pleaded that there is no delay in filing the appeal.
On the other hand, ld. DR of the Revenue did not controvert the aforesaid proposition.
We have heard both the counsels on the issue of condonation of delay. After going through the records, we find that there is no delay in filing the appeal and we hold that the appeal is filed in time.
At the outset of the hearing, ld. AR for the assessee submitted that assessee has filed additional grounds of appeal under Rule 11 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules and it is purely legal issue and the same is reproduced below :- “Ground 8 : That the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were based on incorrect facts and the approval was granted in a mechanical manner without any application of mind. Ground 9 : That the Ld. AO failed in quoting a Document Identification Number on the assessment order dated 09.12.2019 making the assessment order non-est and invalid in the eyes of the law in terms of the CBDT Circular No.19/2019.”
6. Since the above grounds of appeal
are purely legal, do not require fresh facts to be investigated and go to the root of the matter, ld. AR of the assessee prayed that the same may be admitted in view of the judgement of NTPC Ltd. vs. CIT, (1998) 229 ITR 0383 (SC).
7. On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue has no objection of admitting the additional ground of appeal being purely legal issue.
8. In view of the reliance made by the ld. AR for the assessee on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Ltd. (supra) and issue being purely legal, we proceeded to admit the additional ground of appeal being a legal issue.
9. At the time of hearing ld. AR of the assessee did not press the ground relating to DIN and also Additional Ground No.9, hence the same are dismissed as not pressed.
10. Now we deal with additional Ground No.8 as under.
11. Brief facts of the case relating to additional ground raised by the assessee are, the case of the assessee was reopened on the reasons that the case of the assessee was reported on non-PAN AIR for depositing cash of Rs.51.07 lakhs in Oriental Bank of Commerce. The AO observed that as per the information available, assessee is not assessed to tax and has not filed ITR for the relevant assessment year. The AO has recorded the above reasons and got approval from the proper authority and issued the notice u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act 1961 (for short ‘the Act’ and accordingly completed the assessment u/s 147 of the Act.
At the time of hearing ld. AR of the assessee brought to our notice page 1 of the paper book in which AO has recorded the reasons that assessee is a non-filer of return of income and at the same time, the assessee has brought to our notice that the assessee has filed the return of income on 31.03.2013 along with copy of acknowledgement which was submitted before the lower authorities. In this regard, he brought to our notice decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Deepak Wadhwa vs. ACIT (WP (C) No.12551/2018), a copy of the same was placed on record. He submitted that on the exact similar issue, the Hon’ble Court has decided the issue in favour of the assessee.
On the other hand ld. DR of the Revenue brought to our notice page 2 of the assessment order and submitted that assessee has not complied with various notices issued by the AO, therefore, he relied on the findings of the lower authorities.
Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. It is fact on record that AO has reopened assessment based on the information available with him through AIR that assessee has deposited cash in its bank account and he formed an opinion on the basis that the assessee is a non-filer of return of income, however it is fact on record that the assessee filed return of income which is also placed on record. We observe that exactly similar issue was dealt by the Hon’ble Delhi High court in the case of Deepak Wadhwa (supra) and decided the issue in favour of the assessee by observing as under :- “5.2. As far as the other aspect is concerned, in our view, since the proof put in place by the petitioner-assessee with regard to the acknowledgement of return filed for AY 2011-2012 has not been disputed by the Revenue, as noticed above, the challenge to the impugned notice and the impugned order will have to be sustained.
Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, we are inclined to quash the impugned notice dated 27.03.2018 as also the impugned order dated 28.09.2018. It is ordered accordingly. 6.1. The Revenue will pay towards cost Rs.20,000/- to the petitioner- assessee. The costs will be remitted to the petitioner- assessee within 10 days of the receipt of a copy of this order.”
Respectfully following the above decision, we are inclined to allow the additional ground no.8 raised by the assessee.
With regard to other grounds raised
by the assessee, the same are kept open at this stage.
17. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 21st day of November, 2025.