DILIP KANHAIYALAL BHANSALI, GHOTI V. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Nashik, NASHIK

ITA 393/PUN/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2359 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-05-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 26-02-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANISH MEHTA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.No.393/PUN./2024 [E-APPEAL] Assessment Year 2012-2013 Shri Dilip Kanhaiyalal Bhansali, Shriram Wadi, At Post-Ghoti, Dist. Nashik.PIN 422 402 Maharashtra. PAN ABTPN2024P vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan, Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra Road, NASHIK-422 002. Maharashtra. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Pramod S Shingte For Revenue : Shri Manish Mehta Date of Hearing : 22.03.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 14.05.2024 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/ 2023-24/1060080707(1), dated 24.01.2024, in proceedings u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused. 2. It emerges that the first and foremost issue herein is that of validity of the impugned reopening/reassessment itself wherein the learned Assessing Officer had recorded his reasons to believe that the taxpayer’s corresponding taxable income arising from sale of immovable property; had escaped 2 ITA.No.393/PUN./2024 assessment. The Revenue could hardly dispute that the NFAC’s lower appellate discussion in para 4.1 at page-4 has reproduced the said reopening reasons making it clear that the alleged income required “detailed verification as well as in- depth enquiry is needed for which the case is reopened....” 3. Faced with this situation, the undersigned is of the considered opinion in light of PCIT vs. Manzil Dinesh Kumar Shah, [2018] 406 ITR 326 (Guj.) and PCIT vs. Maheswari Devi [2023] 455 ITR 755 (Jharkhand) that such a course of action is not sustainable in sec.148/147 proceedings. I thus quash the impugned reopening/re-assessment for this precise reason alone. All other issues on merits stand rendered academic. 3. This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open Court on 14.05.2024. Sd/- [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 14 th May, 2024 VBP/- Copy to 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. The Pr. CIT, Pune concerned 4. D.R. ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. 5. Guard File. //By Order// //True Copy // Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Pune Benches, Pune.