" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “F” NEW DELHI BEFORESHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 9242/Del/2019 Assessment Year:2010-11 Anil Aggarwal C-49, South Extensions Part-1, New Delhi-110049. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-53(1), New Delhi. PAN: AAYPA1058J (Appellant) (Respondent) ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER This assesseee’s appeal for assessment year 2010-11, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, [in short, the “CIT(A)”], Delhi’s appeal Nos. 53 & 54/2019-20, dated 27.09.2019 involving proceedings under section 147/148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Assessee by None Department by Ms Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR Date of hearing 17.02.2026 Date of pronouncement 20.02.2026 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.9242/Del/2019 2 | P a g e Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte. 2. It emerges during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that there arises the first and foremost issue of validity of impugned reopening truly set into motion by the learned Assessing Officer after recording his reasons to believe that dated 24.03.2017 that the assessee’s taxable income liable to be assessed had escaped assessment. These reopening reasons duly from part of the paper book at page 58 to 62 as well. 3. That being the case, the Revenue could hardly dispute that this is a instance of the impugned reopening being initiated beyond the specified period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year as well. And that the learned Assessing Officer had completed his section 143(3) r.w.s 148 assessment in the assessee’s case on 28.03.2018. There is further no denial to the clinching fact that the impugned reopening reasons nowhere even alleged the assessee failure in disclosing all necessary facts “fully” and “trully” in the above former round. We are of the considered view in light of Hindustan Lever Limited Vs. R.B. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.9242/Del/2019 3 | P a g e Wadkar (2004) 268 ITR 332 (Bombay) that such a reopening itself is not sustaining in law in light of section 147 1st proviso as applicable at the relevant point of time. The same stands quashed in very terms therefore. All other pleadings on merits between the parties stand rendered academic. 4. This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 20th February, 2026 (NAVEEN CHANDRA) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 20th February, 2026. Santosh/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi Printed from counselvise.com "