Pushpa Gupta, New Delhi V. ITO WARD - 46(5), New Delhi

ITA 6984/DEL/2019

AI Insights

The case involves Pushpa Gupta, the appellant, contesting a reassessment order for the Assessment Year 2011-12 issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-46(5), New Delhi. The primary legal issue was the validity of the reassessment order passed under sections 143(3) and 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, shortly after the dismissal of the appellant's objections to the reassessment. The Tribunal referenced the precedent set by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Asian Paints Ltd., which mandated a waiting period before initiating reassessment proceedings post-objection dismissal. The Tribunal found that the reassessment order was passed in violation of this mandate, leading to its quashing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 122089 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 7 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-03-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 12-03-2023
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 21-08-2019
• Other Referred Cases: Asian Paints Ltd. vs. DCIT, Pioneer Town Planners Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, Aroni Commercials Ltd. vs. DCIT, Shri Hirachand Kanuga vs. DCIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 147; 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.6984/Del/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Pushpa Gupta H.No 3540, Haqim Baqqa, Chawri Bazar, Delhi 110006 PAN AUUPG 7227 P vs. ITO, Ward-46(5), New Delhi 110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Shaantanu Jain, Adv. Shri Gurjeet Singh, CA For Revenue : Shri Om Prakash, Sr DR Date of Hearing : 13.03.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 31.03.2023 ORDER PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, J.M. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 28.05.2019 of the Ld. CIT-16, New Delhi, relating to Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The learned counsel of assessee submitted that in the present case the assessee filed her objection to initiation of re-assessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the I.T Act 1961, (for shot the Act) on 05.11.2018 which was dismissed by the AO by passing order on 30.11.2018 and the AO passed impugned reassessment order only ITA No.6984/Del/2019 Pushpa Gupta Page 2 of 4 u/s. 143(3)/147 of the Act on 07.12.2018 for A.Y. 2011-12 which is against the preposition rendered by Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Asian Paints 296 ITR 90 (Bom) which was also follow by various co-ordinate bench of jurisdictional including ITAT Delhi-E Bench in the case of Pioneer Town Planners Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT, order dated 06.08.2018 in ITA No. 132/Del/2018 for A.Y. 2009-10. 3. Replying to the above, the learned Sr. DR supported this orders of the authorities below and submitted there is no bar on that the AO which refrain him from passing reassessment order immediately after dismissal of objections of assessee to the reopening. However, he could not controvert the above noted factual position as submitted by the learned counsel of assessee. 4. On careful consideration of above submissions I note that the co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Delhi in the case of Pioneer Town Planners Pvt. Ltd. (supra) in para 11 and 12 held as follows:- 11. On the issue of validity of reopening and initiation reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act the Id. AR also pointed out that as per ratio of the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Asian Paints Ltd. 296 ITR 90 (Bom), the AO to wait for four weeks to begin assessment after disposing of the objection and non-compliance of the same renders assessment proceedings void. He submitted that in the present case the objections of the assessee vide dated 29.11.2016 filed before the AO were disposed of/dismissed by the A by the order dated 12.12.2016 and he passed impugned reassessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 22.12.2016 which is clear violation of directions given by ITA No.6984/Del/2019 Pushpa Gupta Page 3 of 4 Hon'ble High Court in the case of Asian Paints (supra) and onthis count also reassessment proceedings and consequent orders are void and thus, bad in law. This view was again approved by Hon'ble High Court of Bombay itself in the subsequent decision in the case of Aroni Commercials Ltd. vs. DCIT reported in 362 ITR 403 (Bom) and followed by ITAT, Bombay in the case of Shri Hirachand Kanuga vs.DCIT in ITA No. 4261 & 4262/2012 dated 27.02.2015. 12. On these submissions, the Id. DR could not controvert the facts this that the AO disposed of objections of the assessee by way of passing order on 12.12.2016 and impugned reassessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act was passed only after 10 days of disposal of objections. These facts trigger the ratio of the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Asian paints (supra), wherein their lordship directed that the AO to wait for four weeks to begin assessment after disposing of the objections of the assessee and non-compliance the same renders assessment proceedings void and bad in law. Present impugned reassessment order cannot be held sustainable and valid as the AO has passed the same immediately after 10 days of disposal of/dismissal of objection of the assessee which is clear violation of direction of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Asian paints (supra) and legal contention of the assessee on this issue are found to be acceptable and we hold so. 5. The facts of the said case are quite similar and identical as for the parent case also the AO after dismissing the objections of the assessee on 30.11.2018 and passing impugned reassessment order on 07.12.2019 i.e. within 7 days which is contrary to the preposition rendered by Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Asian Paints (supra) and order of co-ordinate bench of Tribunal in the case of Pioneer Town Planners Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Thus, legal ITA No.6984/Del/2019 Pushpa Gupta Page 4 of 4 contention of assessee placed in ground no. 1 is found to be acceptable and I hold so. In the result ground no. 1 of assessee is allowed. 6. Since by the earlier part of this order I have quashed reassessment order dated 07.12.2018, thus u/s. 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Act, and the learned representative of both the sides did not place any argument on the remaining grounds thus I don’t find it necessary to adjudicate the same as having become academic. 7. In the result appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 31.03.2023. Sd/- (CHANDRA MOHAN GARG) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 31 st March, 2023. NV/- Copy forwarded to : 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR // By Order // Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi