GOLDEN LAND DEVELOPERS LTD,NEW DEWLHI V. ITO, WARD-11(3), NEW DELHI

ITA 384/DEL/2023

AI Insights

The case involves M/s Golden Land Developers Ltd, which appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) concerning the assessment year 2012-13. The appeal arose from an order passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward-11(3), Delhi. The primary contention was the validity of the jurisdiction assumed under section 147, as the reasons for reopening the assessment were recorded by one officer, and the notice under section 148 was issued by another. The Tribunal found this procedural discrepancy significant enough to warrant a de novo hearing by the NFAC.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 303099 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Other Referred Cases: Hynoop Food & Oil Industries Ltd. Vs ACIT
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SURENDER PAL
• Assessee Lawyers: RAKESH GUPTA
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Competent authority
• Section: 147; 148; 143(3)

Judgement Text

"Page | 1 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 384/Del/2023 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/s Golden Land Developers Ltd, House No.89, 1st Floor, Pocket 22, Sector-24, Rohini, Near Best Mega Mall, New Delhi-110085 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(3), New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AABCG5825 Assessee by : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Ms. Shilpa Gupta, CA Shri Saksham Agrwal, CA Revenue by: Shri Surender Pal, CIT DR Date of Hearing 20/02/2025 Date of pronouncement 23/04/2025 O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in ITA No.384/Del/2023 for AY 2012-13, arises out of the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as „ld. NFAC‟, in short] in Appeal No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1049737880(1) dated 14.02.2023 against the order of assessment passed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) dated 27.12.2019 by the Assessing Officer, ITO, Ward-11(3), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as „ld. AO‟). ITA No. 384/Del/2023 M/s Golden Land Developers Ltd Page | 2 2. Though the assessee has raised several grounds of appeal on law as well as on merits, we deem it fit to address the preliminary legal ground of validity of assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act first. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. There was some cash deposits made in the sum of Rs. 1,84,92,950/- in various banks by the assessee and assessee had also received interest of Rs. 11,712/-. Information was obtained from “Non- filers Monitoring System” about the aforesaid activities of the assessee and since no return of income for AY 2012-13 was filed by the assessee, the ld AO formed a belief that income of the assessee had escaped assessment and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 28.03.2019. The assessee filed its return of income on 20.04.2019 declaring total income of Rs. 1,22,448/- in ITR-6. The reassessment was completed u/s 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act on 27.12.2019 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 129,85,58,420/-. 4. Before the ld NFAC, the assessee has raised various objections challenging the validity of assumption of jurisdiction stating that reasons were recorded for reopening of the assessment by an Officer named Shri Nand Kishore Joshi on 15.03.2018 which is enclosed in page 2 of the Paper Book filed before us. The approval u/s 151 of the Act was granted by the competent authority on 19.03.2019 which is enclosed at page 3 of the Paper Book. Later a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 28.03.2019 by an officer named Shri Pankaj Kumar Pruthi. Accordingly, it was pleaded that the reasons were recorded by a different officer and ITA No. 384/Del/2023 M/s Golden Land Developers Ltd Page | 3 notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued by a different officer. The assessee also made various submissions before NFAC on merits of the addition which are all reproduced in page 21 to 33 of the First Appellate order. The NFAC merely addressed the validity of assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act on general terms without addressing the specific objections raised by the assessee in its written submission and upheld the action of the ld AO in assuming jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act. Thereafter, the ld NFAC upheld the addition made by the ld AO on merits. 5. Before us, the ld AR in support of his preliminary objections by challenging the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act placed reliance on the decision of the Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Hynoop Food & Oil Industries Ltd. Vs ACIT reported in 307 ITR 115 (Guj). In support of the proposition that the ld AO recording reasons and ld AO AO issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act should be the same person. The ld DR on the contrary vide his written submission quoted various case laws but we find that the objection raised by the assessee is very very preliminary in nature and that had not been addressed by the ld NFAC. This goes to the root of the mater. Hence, we deem it fit and appropriate, in the interest of justice and fairplay, to restore this entire appeal to the file of the ld NFAC for de novo adjudication in accordance with law. The assessee is at liberty to raise additional grounds, if any, and additional evidences, if any, in support of its contentions. The ld NFAC is directed to dispose of the appeal after duly considering all the contentions of the assessee by passing a speaking order, uninfluenced by orders passed by its predecessor. Since, the entire appeal is restored back to the file of the NFAC, the other grounds raised by the assessee on law as well as on ITA No. 384/Del/2023 M/s Golden Land Developers Ltd Page | 4 merits need not be gone into and they are left open. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 23/04/2025. -Sd/- -Sd/- (MADHUMITA ROY) (M. BALAGANESH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 23/04/2025 A K Keot Copy forwarded to 1. Applicant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, New Delhi "