Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi

Azad ,Amroha vs Ito,Ward-1(1), Moradabad on 19 February, 2025

                                                                     ITA No.3/Del/2024


                IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                      DELHI "E" BENCH: NEW DELHI

     BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER &
             SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

                         ITA No.3/Del/2024
                    [Assessment Year : 2015-16]
          Azad                           vs ITO
          C/o-Ramzani,          H.No.74      Ward-1(1)
          Mohalla Machratta, Amroha          Moradabad
          Uttar Pradesh-244221
          PAN-AKZPA0011E
          APPELLANT                          RESPONDENT
          Appellant by                  Shri Mayank Patawar, CA &
                                        Shri Akash Ojha, Adv
          Respondent by                 Shri Mandeep Panwar, Sr.DR
          Date of Hearing                          06.01.2025
          Date of Pronouncement                    19.02.2025

                                    ORDER

PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, AM :

The instant appeal has been filed at the instance of the assessee seeking to assail the First Appellate order dated 10.11.2023 passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre ("NFAC"), Delhi ["Ld.CIT(A)"] u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ["the Act"] arising from the assessment order dated 27.11.2018 passed u/s 148/144 of the Act pertaining to assessment year 2015-16.

2. As per the grounds of appeal and additional ground, the assessee has challenged the legitimacy of jurisdiction assumed under s. 147 of the Act as well as addition made by the AO towards allegedly unexplained cash deposits in bank amounting to INR 61,32,443/-.

3. We have heard the rival submissions carefully. As pointed out on behalf of the assessee, the belief towards escapement of chargeable income has been entertained by the AO on the basis that the assessee has not filed the return of income for AY 2015-16 in question which is grossly contrary to the facts on record. It is demonstrated on behalf of the assessee that the assessee has duly Page | 1 ITA No.3/Del/2024 filed return of income on 18.06.2018. Hence, the most basic reason of holding belief itself is wholly incorrect and not existed at the time of recordings of the reasons.

4. 'Reason to believe' is the starting point for re-opening a case. A freak foundation or reason that assessee did not file ROI is blatantly contrary to the facts. Belief stemmed from wholly unfounded reasons thus betrays the pre- requisites of s. 147 of the Act. We find that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the judgement of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Arvind Sahdeo Gupta vs ITO-1 Writ Petition No.4793 of 2021 dated 08.08.2023; judgements of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the cases of Shri Tarlochan Lal Goel vs ACIT, Central Circle-62(1) in Writ Petiton (C) 13342/2018 dated 17.08.2023 and Pr.CIT-7, Delhi vs Shree Balkishan Agarwal Glass Industries Ltd. [ITA No.401/2024] dated 30.07.2024 and the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Kunwar Ayub Ali vs ITO in ITA No.3137/Del/2018 (Del.) order dated 17.04.2023 wherein several judgements of the Hon'ble High Courts of different jurisdictions have been referred and it was held that where the reasons cited that the assessee did not file the return of income was found to be factually incorrect, the notice issued under s. 148 of the Act for re-opening of assessment requires to be quashed for assumption of jurisdiction on extraneous grounds.

5. In the light of the judgements rendered in the cases of Arvind Sahdeo Gupta; Shri Tarlochan Lal Goel; Pr.CIT-7, Delhi vs Shree Balkishan Agarwal Glass Industries Ltd. and Kunwar Ayub Ali (supra) expounding the position of law, we find palpable merit in the plea of the assessee towards inherent lack of jurisdiction under s. 147 of the Act.

6. The re-opening proceedings itself being not permissible on the basis of inherently wrong facts, we do not consider it necessary to delve into the merits of the additions. We thus set aside the action of the CIT(A) and quash the re- assessment proceedings giving rise to the present appeal.

Page | 2 ITA No.3/Del/2024

7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court on 19.02.2025.

       Sd/-                                                     Sd/-



(SUDHIR KUMAR)                                         (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA)
JUDICIAL MEMBER                                         ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
*Amit Kumar, Sr.P.S*

Copy forwarded to:
   1. Appellant
   2. Respondent
   3. CIT
   4. CIT(Appeals)
   5. DR: ITAT

                                                           ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
                                                                ITAT, NEW DELHI




                                                                                  Page | 3