NISHIT CHOPRA - THROUGH LEGAL HEIR POONAM CHOPRA,SOUTH DELHI V. ACIT , NEW DELHI

ITSSA 5732/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves a series of appeals by the legal heir of Late Shri Nishit Chopra against the orders of the Income Tax Department concerning block assessments for the period from 01.04.1989 to 14.07.1999. The primary contention was the validity of the assessment orders passed under section 158BC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which were challenged on grounds of being time-barred and lacking necessary statutory approvals. The Tribunal examined the procedural adherence to statutory timelines and the requirement of approvals under section 158BG following the remand of the case by the ITAT in a previous round of appeals.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 785708 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 11-12-2024
• Other Referred Cases: CIT vs Paul Noel Rodrigues [2015] 57 taxmann.com 12 (Kar.), Lakhpatrai Agarwal vs ACIT [2023] 292 taxman 282 (Bom.), ACIT vs SS Con-Build Private Limited [ITA No. 1987/D/2016] [Dt. 20/11/2024]
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUMAN MALIK
• Assessee Lawyers: R.S. SINGHVI
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Period of limitation; Principle of natural justice; Block assessment; Competent authority
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(SS) A.No.5732/DEL/2024 (BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD : 01.04.1989 to 14.07.1999) Late Shri Nishit Chopra, vs. ACIT, (through Legal Heir Poonam Chopra), Circle 50 (1), Delhi. S – 287, 1st Floor, Panchsheel Park, Delhi – 110 017. (PAN : AAEPC3045R) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA Shri Rajat Gupta, CA Shri Satyajeet Goel, Advocate REVENUE BY : Ms. Suman Malik, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 11.09.2025 Date of Order : 29.10.2025 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : 1. This appeal preferred by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Delhi-31 [for short ‘ld. CIT (A)] dated 04.11.2024 for Block Assessment Period 01.04.1989 to 14.07.1999. 2. At the time of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the original assessment order passed under section 158BC of the Income-tax Act, Printed from counselvise.com 2 IT(SS) A.No.5732/DEL/2024 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) was passed on 30.05.2001 making an addition of Rs.7,72,45,289/- and aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (A) and ld. CIT (A) passed the order dated 29.11.2002 upholding the addition of Rs.5,51,36,999/-. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the ITAT in first round of appeal wherein ITAT restored the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication vide order dated 28.11.2014 in IT(SS)A.No.89/Del/2003. Subsequently, assessment order u/s 158BC in second round of proceedings was passed by the Assessing Officer on 29.12.2016 making an addition of Rs.1,74,67,400/-. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee raised the jurisdictional issue and also on the issue of merit before the ld. CIT (A) and ld. CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal preferred by the assessee. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee in appeal before us raising following grounds of appeal :- “1.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the validity of the assessment order even though the same is barred by limitation, 1.2 That the assessment order having been passed after expiry of time limit prescribed u/s 153, the same is invalid and bad in law. 2.1 That on. the facts and circumstance of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the validity of the assessment order passed u/s 158BC even though same was passed without obtaining statutory approval u/s 158BG of the Act. 2.2 That the Hon'ble ITAT having set-aside the assessment, it was incumbent for the assessing officer to have obtained prior Printed from counselvise.com 3 IT(SS) A.No.5732/DEL/2024 approval u/s 158BG before passing of assessment order and the order so passed without approval is invalid and bad in. law, 3.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the additions aggregating Rs.1,74,67,400/- without any opportunity or independent adjudication and as such the order so passed is wholly untenable and in contravention of principles of natural justice. 3.2 That the order of CIT(A) in first round having been explicitly cancelled by Hon'ble IT AT , the Ld. CIT(A) has fallen into error in relying upon the finding of CIT(A) in first round thus rendering the impugned order illegal and without justification. 3.3 That the CIT(A) having failed to consider the documentary evidences and submissions in respect of additions, the impugned order upholding the additions is arbitrary and devoid of merits. 4 That the orders passed by lower authorities are not sustainable on facts and are bad in law.” 3. At the time of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee submitted as under :- “1.1 The Ground No. 1 raised by the Appellant is challenging the validity of the second round Assessment Order dt. 29/12/2016 passed u/s 158BC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is relevant to point out that pursuant to the Hon’ble ITAT Order dt. 28/11/2014 which was served upon the Assessing officer on 15/12/2014 as confirmed in RTI as enclosed, the period of limitation for passing of the Assessment Order in terms of section 153(2A) was till 31/03/2016 i.e. One year from the end of financial year in whichthe order was served on the Department. 1.2 However, in the present case, the Assessment order has been passed on 29/12/2016 which is after expiry of the limitation which ended on 31/03/2016 and as such the Assessment Order is barred by limitation. In this regard, reference is made to the following decisions:  CIT vs Paul Noel Rodrigues [2015] 57 taxmann.com 12 (Kar.)  Lakhpatrai Agarwal vs ACIT [ 2023] 292 taxman 282 (Bom.) Printed from counselvise.com 4 IT(SS) A.No.5732/DEL/2024 2.1 The Ground No. 2 contains challenge to the Assessment Order on the ground of lack of Approval u/s 158BG of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In this regard, it is an undisputed fact that the fresh Assessment order dated 29/12/2016 has been passed by the A.O. without obtaining prior approval of JCIT in terms of section 158BG of the Act. The factual position is verifiable from Page 20 Para 13 of the CIT(A) Order. 2.2 In this connection, it is submitted that it was mandatory for the Assessing officer to have obtained Approval u/s 158BG before passing of the Assessment order as this was a case of fresh assessment pursuant to remand by the Hon’ble ITAT. In fact, the Assessing Officer having issued Notice u/s 143(2) & 142(1) during the course of the proceedings and computed the assessed income based on returned income, it is amply clear that this is a case of framing of fresh assessment u/s 158BC which essentially required prior Approval. Further, the fact of fresh assessment has duly been accepted by the Assessing officer in the Remand Report as appearing at Page 17 of the CIT(A) Order. 2.3 Reference in this regard is made to the latest decision in the case of ACIT vs SS Con-Build Private Limited [ITA No. 1987/D/2016] [Dt. 20/11/2024] wherein the Assessment order passed in the remand proceedings without availing prior Approval was quashed.” 4. On the other hand, ld. DR of the Revenue submtited that the issue of approval was not raised before the ld. CIT (A) and with regard to second legal issue, relied on the findings of the lower authorities. 5. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. With regard to first issue raised by the assessee that the Assessing Officer has passed the assessment order dated 29.12.2016 u/s 158BC in the second round of appeal which is beyond period of limitation. In this regard, he Printed from counselvise.com 5 IT(SS) A.No.5732/DEL/2024 brought to our notice informations collected from the Registry of ITAT through RTI and the relevant order dated 28.11.2014 is placed on record as per which ITAT has pronounced the order on 28.11.2014 and dispatched the order to the Revenue to the office of CIT (Judicial), New Delhi on 15.12.2014. He brought to our notice dispatch and diary number and Speed Post acknowledgement receipt and further brought to our notice Sl.No.160 of the relevant dispatch diary through which the order was dispatched to the Revenue on 15.12.2014 delivered by hand. From the submissions and material placed on record, we observe that the bunch of orders were dispatched to the Revenue by the Dispatch Clerk on 15.12.2014 and as per the provisions of section 153 (2A) of the Act, the reassessment order u/s 158BC should be passed any time before the expiry of one year from the end of the financial year in which the order u/s 254 is received by the PCCIT or PCIT or CIT. Therefore, we observe that the order should have been passed by the Assessing Officer within one year from the end of financial year in which the order was served on the Assessing Officer. From the records, we observe that the order was dispatched on 15.12.2014 and it was delivered by hand along with other bunch of orders. Even, for the sake of argument, the same was received by the Assessing Officer even at the end of the year i.e. 31.03.2015 the order should have been passed by the Assessing Officer on or before Printed from counselvise.com 6 IT(SS) A.No.5732/DEL/2024 31.03.2016. However, we observe that the impugned assessment order u/s 158BC passed by the Assessing Officer on 29.12.2016 which is beyond the limitation prescribed under section 153 (2A) of the Act. On this count itself, the impugned assessment order is passed beyond limitation and we hold assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is bad in law, in this regard, we rely on the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Paul Noel Rodrigues (2015) 57 taxmann.com 12 (Kar.) and Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Lakhpatrai Agarwal vs. ACIT (2023) 292 taxman 282 (Bom.). Accordingly, we quash the assessment order. 6. Coming to Ground No.2, submissions put-forth by the assessee, we observe that assessee has raised the issue that the second round of assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer without the approval u/s 158BG of the Act. It was submitted that the fresh assessment order dated 29.12.2016 was passed by the Assessing Officer without obtaining prior approval of JCIT u/s 158BG of the Act since the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is fresh, assessment pursuant to the remand of the ITAT. After considering the submissions of the assessee, in our considered view, we observe that the original assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer was duly approved by the competent authority u/s 158BG and subsequently in appeal, ld. Printed from counselvise.com 7 IT(SS) A.No.5732/DEL/2024 CIT(A) has given relief and reported to not accepted the additional evidences filed before him. In the first round of appeal before the ITAT, ITAT remanded the issue back to the file of Assessing Officer to redo the assessment afresh. After consideration of the factual matrix on record, the impugned assessment order was passed on the basis of material placed on record and additional evidences which were submitted in the second round of appeal. Therefore, it is not a denovo proceedings remanded to the Assessing Officer by the ITAT. Therefore, there is no requirement to obtain another approval u/s 158BG of the Act. Based on the facts available on record, in these peculiar facts of the case, in the result, second ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 29th day of October, 2025. Sd/- sd/- (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) (S.RIFAUR RAHMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 29.10.2025 TS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals). 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "