Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a resident of UK, challenged the validity of a Section 148 notice issued by the ITO, Ward-49(4), Delhi, arguing that the issuing authority lacked proper jurisdiction. The assessment was subsequently framed by ITO, Ward-2(1)(4).
Held
The tribunal found that the Revenue failed to demonstrate that the ITO, Ward-49(4), Delhi, had valid jurisdiction to initiate the reopening proceedings. Consequently, the reopening was deemed non-est in the eyes of law and quashed.
Key Issues
The primary legal issue was the validity of the Section 148 notice and the competent authority's jurisdiction to initiate reassessment proceedings against the assessee.
Sections Cited
Section 148, Section 143(3)
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, DEHRADUN BENCH, DEHRADUN
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal
ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13, arises against the Addl./JCIT(A), Panaji’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1079082400(1) dated 30.07.2025, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
It emerges at the outset that the assessee proposes her first and foremost substantive grievance/ground challenging validity of the impugned reopening itself for want of a valid section 148 notice issued by the competent authority. There doe not appear to be much a dispute that this assessee/appellant is a resident of UK and assessed in UK only. And that it was the Jeevan Kaur ITO, Ward-49(4), Delhi who had issued section 148 notice dated 31.03.2019 to her after having recorded his reason to believe that the corresponding taxable income liable to be assessed had escaped assessment. And that the ITO, Ward-2(1)(4) thereafter framed his assessment on 07.12.2019 in the assessee’s case.
The above being the clinching factual position, the Revenue could not pinpoint any material in the case records indicating the ITO, Ward-49(4), Delhi as having assumed a valid jurisdiction to initiate the impugned reopening in the assessee’s case. We thus conclude in this factual backdrop and in light of Shirishbhai Hargovandas Sanjanwala Vs. ACIT (2017) 396 ITR 167 (Guj.) to conclude that the impugned reopening initiated in the assessee’s case is a non-est one in the eyes of law. Quashed accordingly.
All other remaining issue between the parties stands rendered academic.