Case Number: ITA 1521/DEL/2020
Appellant: Pushpa Khandelwal, New Delhi
Respondent: ITO WARD – 63(3), New Delhi
Assessment Year: 2011-12
Result: Reopening of Assessment Challenged
Case Filed On: 2020-08-31
Order Type: Final Tribunal Order
Date of Order: 2021-07-30
Pronounced On: 2021-07-30
The case of Pushpa Khandelwal vs. ITO Ward-63(3) pertains to the challenge against the reopening of assessment for the assessment year (AY) 2011-12. This appeal was heard by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi “SMC-1” Bench, chaired by Shri Kul Bharat, Judicial Member. The key issues revolved around the jurisdiction and validity of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Pushpa Khandelwal, the appellant, faced reassessment proceedings initiated based on AIR information indicating the sale of immovable property for Rs.55,00,000/- during the year under consideration. The case was reopened, and a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued on March 28, 2018. The appellant filed objections, which were disposed of by the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward-2(4), Noida. The case was later transferred to ITO Ward-63(3), New Delhi, where further objections were also disposed of.
Pushpa Khandelwal raised several grounds of appeal, including:
During the hearing, the appellant’s counsel, Sh. Ashok Khandelwal, CA, argued that the AO in Noida had no jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148. The appellant was assessed to tax in Delhi, and therefore, the AO at Delhi had the requisite jurisdiction. The notice issued by the AO in Noida was argued to be illegal, rendering subsequent proceedings by the AO in Delhi non-est in the eyes of law.
The respondent’s counsel, Sh. Gaurav Pundir, Sr. DR, argued that the assessment was framed by the AO having jurisdiction and that the objections against the reasons supplied by the AO at Delhi were disposed of. The reassessment was reopened based on tenable reasons.
Upon review, the Tribunal found that the appellant had taken a specific ground regarding the legality of the notice issued under Section 148. The appellant argued that the notice was issued at an incorrect address and was not received by the appellant, thereby violating the mandatory requirements of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal observed that Ld.CIT(A) had dismissed the ground regarding the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO Noida without passing a speaking order. This approach was deemed improper and against the settled principles of law.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the issue to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Ld.CIT(A) was directed to obtain a remand report from the AO regarding the issuance of the notice under Section 148 by the AO at Delhi and provide a clear finding on the reasons recorded by the AO at Delhi. Ld.CIT(A) was also directed to decide the issue of non-receiving of reasons by the AO at Delhi and the limitation of the notice issuance.
All other grounds of the appellant’s appeal were also set aside for fresh decision by Ld.CIT(A).
Order:
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only.
Above decision was pronounced on conclusion of Virtual Hearing in the presence of both the parties on 30th July, 2021.
Sd/-
(KUL BHARAT)
JUDICIAL MEMBER
*Amit Kumar*
Copy forwarded to:
// By Order //
Assistant Registrar, ITAT Delhi Benches, Delhi
Pushpa Khandelwal vs. ITO Ward-63(3): Challenge on Reopening Assessment for AY 2011-12
Manage the increasing number of hearings effortlessly by leveraging the legal AI revolution We are India's Leading revolutionary AI-powered legal platform where you can get enough insights into top cases and judgements.
Research Platform