DINESH BABU SAXENA,NOIDA V. ITO WARD-1(2), GHAZIABAD

ITA 3874/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Dinesh Babu Saxena against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which pertained to the reopening of his income tax assessment for the Assessment Year 2008-09. The reopening was based on information that the assessee had purchased immovable property without disclosing his PAN, and initially, it was assumed that no return was filed by him for the said year. The Tribunal examined the validity of the reopening and found that the reasons for reopening were based on incorrect facts, leading to the quashing of the assessment order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 788879 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 13-06-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HARPREET KAUR HANSRA
• Assessee Lawyers: S SAHIL SHARMA; SANJAY PARASHAR
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Reopening of assessment
• Section: 147; 148

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण िदʟी पीठ “एफ”, िदʟी ŵी िवकास अव̾थी, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी अवधेश क ुमार िमŵा, लेखाकार सद˟ क े समƗ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”, DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आअसं.3874/िदʟी/2025(िन.व. 2008-09) ITA No.3874/DEL/2025 (A.Y.2008-09) Dinesh Babu Saxena, S/o Late Shri Fakir Chand Saxena, A-49, Omaxe, NRI City, Omega-II, Greater Noida, Uttar Prades 201310 PAN: AUJPS-0900-J ...... अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), CGO Complex-I, Hapur Chungi, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201002 ..... ᮧितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथŎ Ȫारा/ Appellant by : S/Shri Sahil Sharma & Sanjay Parashar Advocates ŮितवादीȪारा/Respondent by : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR सुनवाई कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of hearing : 17/11/2025 घोषणा कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of pronouncement : : 26/11/2025 आदेश/ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 10.12.2024, for Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The appeal is time barred by 108 days. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit and Medical records. After perusal of same, we are satisfied that delay in filing of appeal is not intentional, but is for Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No.3874/DEL/2025 (A.Y.2008-09) the reasons stated in the condonation petition which appears to be bonafide. Hence, delay in filing of appeal is condoned and appeal is admitted for hearing on merits. 3. Shri Sahil Sharma, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that the proceedings u/s.147 r.w.s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) were initiated on a wrong assumption of facts. The assessee had filed his return of income for AY 2008-09 on 26.12.2008, disclosing income of Rs.3,88,845/-. Notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 22.03.2015, the said notice was never served on the assessee. Subsequently, the assessee asked for the reasons for reopening of the assessment. The reasons provided to the assessee are at pages 1 & 2 of the paper book. Referring to the reasons, the ld. Counsel submitted that the Assessing Officer (AO) has recorded reasons for reopening on wrong assumption of fact that no return of income for AY 2008-09 was filed by the assessee. Whereas, the assessee had filed his return of income for AY 2008-09 on 26.12.2008. A copy of acknowledgment for filing of return of income is at page 3 of the paper book. Since, the assessment has been reopened on wrong assumption of facts, the reasons to believe for reopening are liable to be quashed. The subsequent proceedings based on wrong reasons are also liable to be quashed. 4. Per contra, Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra representing the department vehemently defending reopening of assessment and the assessment order submitted that, the assessment in the case of assessee was reopened on the basis of AIR Information received by the Department that the assessee has purchased immovable property on 01.02.2008 for sum of Rs.63,00,000/-. While entering into the said transaction, the assessee had not disclosed his PAN. On the basis of said Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.3874/DEL/2025 (A.Y.2008-09) AIR Information, the AO recorded the reasons for reopening and issued notice u/s.148 of the Act. The said notice was received back un-served from the postal authorities as the assessee changed his address without any information to the department. The AO deputed the Inspector to contact the assessee on his mobile number. The Inspector called the assessee on his mobile number and asked the assessee to provide his current postal address so that the notice can be served, but the assessee disconnected the phone without providing his current postal address. The Assessing Officer was thus constrained to complete the assessment u/s.144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act as the assessee deliberated avoided service of notice. 5. Both sides heard, orders of the authorities below examined. The short issue for consideration in the present appeal is whether the assessment was validly reopened in the case of assessee? Before proceeding further it would be relevant to refer to the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. The same is reproduced herein under:- “Reasons for the belief that income has escaped Assessment:- 09.03.2015 On the basis of AIR Information received, it is found that Shri Dinesh Babu Saxena, SO Shri Fakir Chand Saxena, the assessee purchased immovable property on 01/02:2008 for a sum of Rs.63,00,000/-. As per record of this office the return of income had not been filed by the assessee for A. Y. 2008-09. On the basis of the information in my possession, I have reasons to believe that the investment in the purchase of property is out of undisclosed sources and the same is chargeable to tax as escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 6. A bare perusal of the reason would show that the AO has assumed that no return of income was filed by the assessee for AY 2008-09. Whereas, in the Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No.3874/DEL/2025 (A.Y.2008-09) assessment order dated 18.03.2016, in opening line of the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has recorded that the assessee had filed return of income on 26.12.2008 disclosing income of Rs.3,88,845/-. The reasons recorded for re- opening runs contrary to the facts recorded in assessment order. The assessee has placed on record copy of acknowledgment for filing return of income for AY 2008-09 at page 3 of the paper book. The reasons recorded for reopening the assessment are soul of proceedings u/s.147/148 of the Act. They cannot be altered, amended or rectified later on. In the present case, the Assessing Officer’s reasons to believe are based on wrong assumption of facts. This makes the reasons invalid, hence, unsustainable. The proceedings arising from invalid reasons for reopening are also vitiated. Thus, in light of above facts, the assessment order passed u/s.144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act is quashed, as the same arises from invalid reasons. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on Wednesday the 26th day of November, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA) (VIKAS AWASTHY) लेखाकार सद᭭य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ᭠याियक सद᭭य/JUDICIAL MEMBER िदʟी/Delhi, ᳰदनांक/Dated 26/11/2025 NV/- Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No.3874/DEL/2025 (A.Y.2008-09) ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ/The Appellant , 2. ᮧितवादी/ The Respondent. 3. The PCIT 4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., िदʟी /DR, ITAT, िदʟी 5. गाडᭅ फाइल/Guard file. ORDER, //True Copy// (Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "