LATE SH SULEKH CHAND JAIN THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH ATUL JAIN,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 44(6), DELHI, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2199/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 September 2025AY 2015-16Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA (Accountant Member)1 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 by a non-jurisdictional AO was erroneous and untenable. Relying on judicial precedents, it quashed the reopening reasons recorded by the ITO, Rohtak.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) concerning assessment year 2015-16. The primary issue was the validity of the reopening of assessment initiated by the ITO Ward-2, Rohtak, despite the assessee being assessed in Delhi.

What were the issues?

Whether the reopening of assessment by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) from Ward-2, Rohtak was valid when the assessee was assessed in Delhi, and if the proceedings were vitiated due to lack of territorial jurisdiction.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 292BB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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, DELHI BENCH ‘A’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, CA
For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Mahajan, Sr. DR
Hearing: 28.08.2025Pronounced: 28.08.2025

O R D E R PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M: This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2015-16 arises against National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi’s’ order dated 11.02.2025 [DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1073141126(1)] in proceedings u/s 147 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 that there arises the first and foremost issue of validity of the impugned reopening itself set into motion by the learned lower authorities. This is for the precise reason that the learned ITO, Ward-2, Rohtak had 14.12.2021 wherein the assessee undisputedly has been assessed at Delhi all along. These reopening reasons admittedly form part of records at pages 18-19 of the paper book separately. There is again no dispute between the parties that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC has also not disputed the assessee’s assessment jurisdiction at Delhi in his detailed discussion as under:

“Grounds 2 to 6 are raised against reopening of assessment u/s 147/148. The appellant stated that territorial jurisdiction of the case lies with the ITO Ward 26(4) New Delhi and contrary to and disregarding the above facts, the action u/s 147/148 was initiated by the ITO Ward 2 Rohtak. The assumption of jurisdiction by non-jurisdictional AO was erroneous and untenable and consequently the notices u/s 148 so issued are not valid in law. For this proposition reliance is placed in the cases of Col. Paramjit Singh Vs. CIT [(1995) 220 ITR 446 (P&H)] and Dushyant Kr. Jain Vs. DCIT [(2016) 381 ITR 428 (Del)]. The appellant also submitted that reason for reopening the assessment was not informed while issuing notice u/s 148. The assessing officer has initiated the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the IT Act relying on the information from the investigation wing without any supporting material and therefore same is initiated without application of mind.

4.1.1 Adjudication of grounds 2 to 6:

The assessment proceedings in this case was conducted by National Faceless Assessment Centre. There is no relevance of territorial PAN jurisdiction for faceless assessment. The department has come a long way after the cases of Col. Paramjit Singh and Dushyant Kr. Jain (supra). It is seen that the appellant responded to all notices issued during proceedings u/s 148 without expressing any personal difficulty due to change in jurisdiction. It is seen from records that the appellant requested the assessing officer to provide copy of reason recorded for reopening of the case and AO provided the reason in letter form on 14.12.2021. It is seen from the assessment order that on receipt of the information from investigation wing, enquiries were conducted by the assessing officer through ITBA portal on ITS/360* profile, e-filing website and ITR of the assessee. On verification, it was noticed that the assessee had not furnished any material facts in the specified schedule for Capital Gains. The case was analyzed vis-å-vis the provisions of the I.T. Act and the facts of the case. After cross verifying the Data/Information available on the system, ITR filed and the records available with this office, it was seen that the assessee had earned Rs.3,38,15,500/- on account of Long Term Capital Gain, but the same was not reflected in his ITR in the relevant schedule for the year under consideration. The assessee had not furnished any information in the Schedule CG including the full value consideration, expenditure made, if any etc. Hence notice u/s 148 was issued after obtaining necessary approval from higher authorities. There is no evidence on record to show that satisfaction recorded by the approving authority was mechanical and without application of mind. Delhi High Court vide order dated 18.03.2024 in the case of S.B. Packagings Ltd. v. Asstt./Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 22(2), New Delhi & Ors. [W.P. (C) 13743/2018] has held that the authority to reassess income under Section 147 of the Act is circumscribed with a predominant condition that the AO must be in possession of reasons to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. In this case there is no doubt that the appellant had unexplained capital gains. Since Assessing Officer reopened assessment after recording due reasons and after conducting necessary enquiries to form a prima facie belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment in hands of assessee, impugned reopening notice was justified. As a result, grounds 2 to 6 are dismissed.”

3.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee and the Revenue’s vehement respective submissions against and in support of the impugned reopening. We make it clear at the cost of repetition that even the Revenue’s stand herein is not disputing the assessee’s assessment jurisdiction at Delhi all along. That being the case, we are of the considered view that once the learned assessing authority at Rohtak had recorded its reopening in the assessee’s case, all other proceedings in consequence thereto could not be saved u/s 292BB of the Act for want of jurisdiction vested in him. Various judicial precedents i.e. Col. Paramjit Singh v. CIT [(1995) 220 ITR 446 (P&H)] and Dushyant Kumar Jain v.

DCIT [(2016) 381 ITR 428 (Del)] have already decided the issue in assessee’s favour and against the department. We thus see no reason to express our concurrence with the learned lower authorities’ action recording reopening reasons by the learned ITO, Rohtak; and, therefore, the same stand quashed in very terms. Ordered accordingly. All other pleadings on merits between the parties stand rendered academic.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →