“reopening of assessment”

Seema Rani Sarna, Haryana vs. ITO Ward-1, Fatehabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhrieash Kumar Sarna, Vs Ito, Ward -1, House No. 35, Ward 19, Fatehabad Friends Colony, Tohana Haryana Fatehabad-125120 Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) & Seema Rani Sarna, Vs. Ito, Ward -1, Plot No. 10, Ratia Road, Fatehabad Jamalpur Sheikhan, Haryana Fatehabad-125120 Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent)

assessee pointed out that there is jurisdictional issue in this appeal in regard to assumption of jurisdiction by the AO for reopening the assessment u/s. 147 read with section 148 of the Act. For this, assessee has raised the Ground No. 3, which reads as under:- “3. Confirming the following ... without there being any valid reason leading to the belief of escapement of income; ii. Disposing off the objections to the reopening of assessment mechanically by non speaking order.” 3. Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 22.7.2022, is barred by limitation

Eash Kumar Sarna, Fatehabad vs. ITO Ward-1, Fatehabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhrieash Kumar Sarna, Vs Ito, Ward -1, House No. 35, Ward 19, Fatehabad Friends Colony, Tohana Haryana Fatehabad-125120 Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) & Seema Rani Sarna, Vs. Ito, Ward -1, Plot No. 10, Ratia Road, Fatehabad Jamalpur Sheikhan, Haryana Fatehabad-125120 Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent)

assessee pointed out that there is jurisdictional issue in this appeal in regard to assumption of jurisdiction by the AO for reopening the assessment u/s. 147 read with section 148 of the Act. For this, assessee has raised the Ground No. 3, which reads as under:- “3. Confirming the following ... without there being any valid reason leading to the belief of escapement of income; ii. Disposing off the objections to the reopening of assessment mechanically by non speaking order.” 3. Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 22.7.2022, is barred by limitation

Rakesh Divedi, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 43(6), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalrakesh Divedi, Income Tax Officer, 87, Triveni Apartments, Ward-43(6), Delhi. Pitampura, New Delhi - Vs. 110034. Pan-Apcpd9179A (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Pranshu Singhal, Ca Assessee By & Ms. Mansi Jain, Adv. Department By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 30/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/01/2026 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ In Short) Dated 07.03.2025 In Appeal No.40/10204/2018-19 Arising Out Of The Order Passed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-40(3) U/S 143(3) Of The Act (‘The Act’ For Short) Dated 20.12.2016 For Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is An Individual & Proprietor Of M/S Triambkay Gauri Impex. The Information Was Received By The Ao From Investigation Wing That There Were Cash Deposits In The Bank Account Of The Assesse With Icici Bank, However, Income Of The Assessee & Gross Receipt Has Not Rakesh Divedi Vs. Income Tax Officer Commensurate With The Cash So Deposited, Therefore, After Recording The Reason U/S 147, Notice U/S 148 Was Issued On 31.03.2016 After Obtaining Statutory Approval From The Pcit. Thereafter, Assessment Was Completed Vide Order Dated 20.12.2016 Wherein Total Addition Of Rs. 5,20,88,345/- Was Made U/S 68 Of The Act For Cash Deposited In The Bank Accounts By Holding The Same As Unexplained Cash Credits. 3. Against The Said Order, Assessee Has Filed An Appeal Before Ld. Cit(A) Who Vide Impugned Order Has Partly Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee & Directed The Ao To Make Addition Of Peak Credit Of The Total Deposits In The Bank Accounts.

Goyanka Lime & Chemical Ltd. reported in (2015) 64 taxmann.com 313 (SC) examined the identical issue as to according the sanction for reopening the assessment u/s 148 of the Act by merely recording “Yes. I am satisfied” and held the reopening on the basis of mechanical sanction as invalid by making ... that where Joint Commissioner recorded satisfaction in mechanical manner and without application of mind to accord sanction for issuing notice under. section 148, reopening of assessment was invalid - Whether Special Leave Petition filed against impugned order was to be dismissed - Held, yes [In favour of assessee] Search and Seizure-Procedure

Gyan Enterprises Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 10(2), New Delhi

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Page 1 ITA No.2401/Del/2025 Gyan Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2012-13) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, DELHI

Ktm Impex Private Limited, Panipat vs. ITO, Panipat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Aggrieved assessee is in appeal before us raising following grounds of appeal :- “Each ground is independent and without prejudice to the others: 1. Reopening of assessment u/s 147 is bad in law and void ab initio The Learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in upholding the reopening ... incriminating material was found to justify such addition.” ITA No.2377/Del/2025 At the time of hearing, Id. AR of the assessee submitted that reopening of assessment u/s 147 is bad in law and void ab initio and further submitted that Id. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in upholding

Mittal Homes Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-17(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: # Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan & Shri Manish Agarwal

both on facts and in law in confirming addition made by A.O without considering the objections raised by assessee regarding the validity of reopening of assessment during assessment stage. - 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) has erred both on facts ... reproduced as under: - - "3. The Ld.AR argued and first took up the legal ground related to assumption of jurisdiction by the Ld.AO for reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Act. The Ld.AR submitted a chart related to issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act and finally

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Brij Bhushan Gupta, Delhi

In the result, the cross objections for AY 2013-14 filed by the assessee is

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘A’: NEW DELHI. BEFORE SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI ANUBHAV

Best Bull Stock Trading Pvt Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-18, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. M. Balaganesh

assessee on the ground that on the amendment introduced with effect from 1-4-1989 in sub-section (1), which enables reopening of assessment based on any order of Court in any proceedings in any law', there is no corresponding amendment made in subsection (2) of section ... facts because it was realised that after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, no action for reopening of assessment could be taken on the basis of detection of mistake alone unless there was also an allegation that the income had escaped assessment because

Best Bull Stock Trading Pvt Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-18, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. M. Balaganesh

assessee on the ground that on the amendment introduced with effect from 1-4-1989 in sub-section (1), which enables reopening of assessment based on any order of Court in any proceedings in any law', there is no corresponding amendment made in subsection (2) of section ... facts because it was realised that after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, no action for reopening of assessment could be taken on the basis of detection of mistake alone unless there was also an allegation that the income had escaped assessment because

Singhal Fasteners Company Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 23(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07 Vs M/S Singhal Fasteners Company Ito Ward-8(4) New Delhi Private Limited 67-68 Rampuri Govind Puri Kalkaji New Delhi-19 Pan No. Aaacs1428H (Respondent) (Appellant)

what documents he had perused and what were the reasons for his being satisfied to accord the sanction to initiate the reopening of assessment u/s 148 of the Act.” (ii) In the case of CIT vs. Goyanka Lime & Chemical Ltd. (2015) 64 taxmann.com 313 (SC) the Hon’ble Supreme Court ... examined the identical issue as to according the sanction for reopening the assessment u/s 148 of the Act by merely recording “Yes. I am satisfied” and held that re-opening on the basis of mechanical sanction is invalid. (iii) Signature Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO 338 ITR 0051 (Delhi