INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), DELHI, DELHI vs. ARTISTIC FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, Ground no. 3 as raised by the assessee deserves to be allowed and the impugned addition cannot be sustained

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang(), Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13] Mahesh Kumar, Vs Ito, 6/305/1A, Doonger Ward-68(6), Mohalla, Delhi-110032. Delhi. Pan-Aoopk6335A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Neeraj Mangla, Ca Respondent By Shri Krishna K. Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2025

reassessment proceeding had become null & void in the eyes of law. The relevant finding of the Tribunal in para no.13 in this case is reproduced as under:- “We note that in the assessee`s case under consideration, the assessment for A.Y. 2009-10 was completed u/s. 143(3)/11 of the Act on 01/03/2011. A notice under section

BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 5(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal issues

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalbses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Dy. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Asst. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Yamuna Power Dy. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. & Ors Vs. Acit Bses Yamuna Power Asst. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Sh. Deepesh Jain, Adv. & Sh. Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Mr. Javed Akhtar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/04/2025 O R D E R

reassessed at Rs. 36,76,28,228/- which stood rectified in terms of the rectification order passed u/s 154 / 147 / 143(3) dated 24.11.2015 at a total loss of Rs. 40,34,81,098/-. Against the order passed u/s 147 / 143(3), the assessee filed an appeal before ld. CIT(A) who vide impugned order dated 31.03.2017 has dismissed

BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), NEW DEL;HI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal issues

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalbses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Dy. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Asst. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Yamuna Power Dy. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. & Ors Vs. Acit Bses Yamuna Power Asst. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Sh. Deepesh Jain, Adv. & Sh. Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Mr. Javed Akhtar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/04/2025 O R D E R

reassessed at Rs. 36,76,28,228/- which stood rectified in terms of the rectification order passed u/s 154 / 147 / 143(3) dated 24.11.2015 at a total loss of Rs. 40,34,81,098/-. Against the order passed u/s 147 / 143(3), the assessee filed an appeal before ld. CIT(A) who vide impugned order dated 31.03.2017 has dismissed

DCIT CIRCLE-10(1), NEW DELHI vs. ANJANI KUMAR GOENKA, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Kumara.Yr. : 2011-12 Dcit, Cirlce-10(1), Anjani Kumar Goenka, C.R. Building, Vs. N-86, Connaught Place, I.P. Estate, New Delhi – 1 New Delhi – 2 (Pan: Aagpg6344M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Amit Goel, Ca Respondent By : Mr. Javed Akhtar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 08.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.10.2024 Order

section 147/148 of the Act are not applicable in such cases. No contrary decision has been brought to our notice. Accordingly, we hold that initiation of proceedings u/s 147/148 by the AO to reassess the income is illegal being without jurisdiction and consequently the reassessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3

ACIT CIRCLE-59(1), NEW DELHI vs. NEERAJ KUMAR SINGHAL, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

reassessment proceedings initiated are bad-in-law and barred by limitation. Original assessment in this case was completed us 143(3) and as per proviso to section 147, no action of reopening could have been taken after the expiry of 4 years from the end of relevant assessment year. As per proviso to section 147, no action of reopening

DCIT, CC-15, NEW DELHI vs. BDR BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS P. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usasstt. Year: 2012-13 Dcit, Vs. Bdr Builders & Developers P. Ltd,B- Central Circle-15, 393, Zakir Nagar So, South East Delhi, New Delhi New Delhi-1100025 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.03.2023

147 of the Act. In this case assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act, and period for reopening of the case is beyond 4 years therefore, necessary sanction to issue notice u/s 148 has to be obtained from Commissioner of Income Tax as per the provisions of section 151 of the Act." 9. Regarding the reasons recorded

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. VALMIK THAPAR, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

u/s 143 (3) of the act only test that is to be seen is whether the assessing officer has reason to believe that income has escaped the assessment order not. 46. According to the provisions of Section 147 of the income tax act, if the assessing officer has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment

SH. VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

u/s 143 (3) of the act only test that is to be seen is whether the assessing officer has reason to believe that income has escaped the assessment order not. 46. According to the provisions of Section 147 of the income tax act, if the assessing officer has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment

SHRI VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

u/s 143 (3) of the act only test that is to be seen is whether the assessing officer has reason to believe that income has escaped the assessment order not. 46. According to the provisions of Section 147 of the income tax act, if the assessing officer has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment

ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 147 of the Act based on the reasons mentioned above is, in my opinion, void ab initio and accordingly, the rejection of the appellant’s objection to the reopening of the original assessment u/s 143(3) as well as the subsequent order of reassessment

SGDC INDIA P. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 24(2), DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

147 and failure to take steps under section 143(3) will not render the Assessing Officer powerless to initiate reassessment proceedings, even when intimation under section 143(1) has been issued. 15. Referring to the decision in the case Yuvraj v. Union of India, 315 ITR 84 he submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said decision

SGDC INDIA P. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 24(2), DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

147 and failure to take steps under section 143(3) will not render the Assessing Officer powerless to initiate reassessment proceedings, even when intimation under section 143(1) has been issued. 15. Referring to the decision in the case Yuvraj v. Union of India, 315 ITR 84 he submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said decision

SMT ARTI SHARMA,GURGAON vs. ITO, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 Smt. Arti Sharma, Vs. Income Tax Officer, C/O- Kunal Aggarwal & Ward-3(3), Gurgaon Associates, 2Nd Floor Jmd Megapolis, Sector-48, Sohna Road, Gurgaon Pan :Bexps5432Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessment in general has been provided in section 153 of the Act. For completion of the assessment under section 147, time limit has been provided in sub-section 2 of section 153 of the Act. During the relevant period, the said section provided time limit for completion of the assessment under section 147 of the Act as one 14 year

SMT. CHAYA SINHA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, FARIDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shria.T.Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 147 to 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and reopening of the case is bad in law and beyond the jurisdiction of the Ld. A.O. and without recording valid reasons in the eyes of law and the same is barred by limitation. Page 2 of 11 2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD., DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

143(3) and the notice u/s 148 was issued beyond four years, the proviso to section 147 is applicable in the present case. Further, there is no allegation in the reasons that there was any omission or failure on part of the assessee in disclosing true and full particulars of income and as such the reassessment

M/S. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

143(3) and the notice u/s 148 was issued beyond four years, the proviso to section 147 is applicable in the present case. Further, there is no allegation in the reasons that there was any omission or failure on part of the assessee in disclosing true and full particulars of income and as such the reassessment

ACIT, CIRCLE-19(2), NEW DELHI vs. P & R INFRAPROJECTS LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

147 r,w.s.l43 (3) without issuing any notice u/s 143(2). 5.1 Submissions of appellant on this ground of appeal are as under;- “3. It is very clear from the assessment order itself that notice u/s 143(2) was never issued. Before completing assessment u/s 143(3), it is mandatory to issue notice u/s 143(2) otherwise the assessment order

JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PRCIT, GURUGRAM

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed on the issue of the impugned order passed beyond the prescribed time, other issues are left open

143(3) of the Act, which was subject matter of revision by the learned PCIT is barred by limitation u/s 263 of the Act. He submitted that notice dated 27.02.2019 was issued u/s 263 of the Act culminated into the order u/s 263 of the Act on 30.03.2019 and the impugned order which was revised was passed u/s 147