ARUNA SANGAL,SHAMLI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1)(4), SHAMLI

ITA 51/DEL/2026

AI Insights

The case involves Aruna Sangal, the appellant, who contested the reopening of her income tax assessment for the Assessment Year 2009-10 by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(4), Shamli. The reopening was based on a notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, issued on 30.03.2016, which the appellant challenged as being procedurally and factually incorrect. The primary contention was that the Assessing Officer incorrectly claimed that no voluntary return of income was filed, despite the fact that a return had indeed been filed under section 139(4) on 05.10.2009. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal examined the validity of the reopening and found substantial procedural flaws, leading to the quashing of the reassessment proceedings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 838274 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 02-01-2026
• Other Referred Cases: Amit Khatri vs. ITO, Omkam Developers Ltd. vs. ITO
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANOJ KUMAR; THROUGH VC
• Assessee Lawyers: SURESH KUMAR; CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT
• Keywords: Reassessment proceedings; Reopening of assessment; Competent authority

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण धिल्ली पीठ “एस एम सी”, धिल्ली श्री धिकास अिस्थी, न्याधयक सिस्य IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”, DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आअसं.51/धिल्ली/2026 (नि.व. 2009-10) ITA No.51/DEL/2026 (A.Y.2009-10) Aruna Sangal, Sangal Niwas, Nala Road, Shamli, Uttar Pradesh 247776 PAN: BSBPS-6333-J ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant बिाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(4), Shamli, Uttar Pradesh 247776 ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent अपीलार्थी द्वारा/Appellant by : Shri Suresh Kumar, Chartered Accountant प्रधििािीद्वारा/Respondent by : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR (Through VC) सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date of hearing : 18/02/2026 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date of pronouncement : 18/02/2026 आदेश/ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-2, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT (A)’) dated 28.11.2025, for the Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The assessee in appeal has raised multiple grounds inter alia assailing validity of reopening of assessment, as well as addition on merits. 3. Shri Suresh Kumar appear for the assessee submits that the assessment for AY 2009-10 in the case of assessee was reopened and notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued on 30.03.2016. He contended that the notice u/s.148 of the Act and the proceedings arising therefrom are bad in law. Referring to the proforma wherein Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 51/DEL/2026 (A.Y.2009-10) approval was sought by the Assessing Officer (AO) from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax for reopening of assessment, he submitted that the very foundation for reopening is based on incorrect facts. The ld. AR pointed that in the approval form, the AO has mentioned that no voluntary return of income was filed by the assessee. However, the assessee had filed her return of income u/s.139(4) of the Act on 05.10.2009 for A.Y. 2009–10. In support of his submissions the ld. AR referred to the copy of acknowledgment of return of income at page 4 of the paper book. It was further submitted that in the reasons recorded for reopening (placed at pages 2 and 3 of the paper book), there is no whisper regarding return of income filed by the assessee. However, in the assessment order, the AO himself has recorded that the assessee had filed return of income under section 139(4) of the Act on 05.10.2009. Thus, the very basis for reopening is factually incorrect. In support of his contentions, the ld. AR placed reliance on the decisions of the Tribunal in the cases of Amit Khatri vs. ITO 2024 (12) TMI 1338 – ITAT Delhi and Omkam Developers Ltd. vs. ITO 2021 (5) TMI 414 – ITAT Delhi. 4. Per contra, Shri Manoj Kumar representing the department strongly supported the impugned order and the order of CIT(A). He contends that the assessment has been reopened in a valid manner. 5. Both sides heard, orders of the authorities below examined. A perusal of the proforma seeking approval from the Competent Authority for reopening of assessment reveals that the Assessing Officer has recorded incorrect facts by stating that no return of income was filed by the assessee. On the other hand, records show that the assessee had filed her return of income u/s.139(4) of the Act on 05.10.2009. Further, in the reasons recorded for reopening, there is no reference to the return filed by the assessee. While passing the reassessment Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 51/DEL/2026 (A.Y.2009-10) order, the Assessing Officer himself acknowledges that the return was filed under section 139(4) of the Act. This clearly demonstrates non-application of mind at the stage of recording reasons and seeking approval. The approval granted by the Competent Authority also appears to have been accorded in a mechanical manner without examining correctness of the factual foundation. Here it would be relevant to refer to Form for recording the reasons for initiating proceedings u/s.148 of the Act and obtaining approval from PCIT. The same is extracted herein under:- Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 51/DEL/2026 (A.Y.2009-10) A bare reading of the above Form would show that against Column No.8(a) whether any voluntary return has already been filed? The AO has mentioned- ‘No’ and the PCIT has approved the same in a perfunctory manner, without calling for the records. When the substratum for reopening of assessment is based on incorrect facts, the assumption of jurisdiction u/s.148 of the Act cannot be sustained. In view of the above facts, the reassessment proceedings initiated in the case of the assessee is held to be without jurisdiction, hence, liable to be quashed. The approval and reasons for reopening of assessment is declared invalid. Consequently, the subsequent proceedings are held null and void. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on Wednesday the 18th day of February, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) न्यानयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER धिल्ली/Delhi, ददिांक/Dated 23/02/2026 NV/- प्रतिलिपि अग्रेपििCopy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी/The Appellant , 2. प्रनिवादी/ The Respondent. 3. The PCIT/CIT(A) 4. ववभागीय प्रनिनिथि, आय.अपी.अथि., दिल्ली /DR, ITAT, धिल्ली 5. गार्ड फाइल/Guard file. Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No. 51/DEL/2026 (A.Y.2009-10) BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "