ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-16, NEW DELHI V. RAKESH BANSAL, NEW DELHI

MA 274/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves a miscellaneous application by the revenue seeking to recall an earlier order of the Tribunal. The revenue argued that the Tribunal should have considered the amended provisions of the Finance Act, 2017, which allow for reopening of assessments for a block period of 10 years if certain conditions are met. However, the Tribunal found that the AO did not explicitly state an intention to apply these amended provisions in the satisfaction note for initiating proceedings under section 153C of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's application, upholding the original order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 833568 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 03-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 28-06-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HARPREET KAUR HANSRA
• Assessee Lawyers: ANKIT KUMAR

Judgement Text

"Page | 1 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER MA 274/Del/2024 (In ITA No. 1685/Del/2023) (Assessment Year: 2014-15) ACIT, Central Circle-16, New Delhi Vs. Rakesh Bansal, 117, LGF, Arjun Nagar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AEKPB0298R Assessee by : Shri Ankit Kumar, Adv Revenue by: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 30/01/2026 Date of pronouncement 03/02/2026 O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. By virtue of this miscellaneous application, the revenue seeks to recall the order passed by this Tribunal in ITA No. 1658/Del/2023 dated 22.01.2024 on the ground that the Tribunal having construed the date of search qua the assessee to be 22.02.2021 based on the satisfaction note recorded in the case of the assessee for initiation of proceedings u/s 153C of the Act, ought to have considered the amended provisions brought in by Finance Act, 2017 which enabled the revenue to reopen 10 years and that AY 2014-15 falls within the said block period of 10 years. 2. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. On perusal of the satisfaction note recorded qua the assessee for initiation of proceedings u/s 153C of the Act which is enclosed at pages 24 and 25 of the Paper Book, we find that the ld AO had not Printed from counselvise.com MA 274/Del/2024 Rakesh Bansal Page | 2 brought out his intention to apply the amended provision of Finance Act, 2017 which mandates the AO to clearly bring on record that in case if he intends to stretch beyond the period of 6 years for reopening the earlier years, then the ld AO should state that the undisclosed income exceeds Rs. 50 lakhs in aggregate and that the same is represented in the form of an asset. This fact is conspicuously absent in the satisfaction note recorded by the ld AO which goes to prove that the ld AO never intended to apply the amended provision of Finance Act, 2017. Hence, the contention of the revenue in the miscellaneous application is devoid of merit and hence, dismissed. 3. In the result, the miscellaneous application of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 03/02/2026. -Sd/- -Sd/- (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) (M. BALAGANESH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 03/02/2026 A K Keot Copy forwarded to 1. Applicant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, New Delhi Printed from counselvise.com "