RAJ KUMAR KEDIA HUF,DELHI V. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3, DELHI

CO 41/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT), Central Circle-3, New Delhi against Raj Kumar Kedia HUF concerning the reopening of an assessment for the Assessment Year 2011-12. The reopening was challenged on the grounds of its validity, particularly focusing on the procedural adherence under sections 147 and 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal examined the reasons for reopening provided by the Assessing Officer and found discrepancies in the procedural compliance, leading to the quashing of the reopening.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 38254 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 20-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Other Referred Cases: Hindustan Lever Ltd vs. R. B. Wadkar, ACIT, CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUNIL YADAV
• Assessee Lawyers: AMIT GOEL; PRANAV YADAV
• Section: 147; 144; 143(3)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. Amitabh Shukla, Accountant Member ITA No. 1358/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12 DCIT, Central Circle-3, New Delhi-110055 Vs Raj Kumar Kedia HUF, 59/17, Bahubali Apartment, New Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAKHR2602D CO No. 41/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12 Raj Kumar Kedia HUF, 59/17, Bahubali Apartment, New Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 Vs DCIT, Central Circle-3, New Delhi-110055 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAKHR2602D Assessee by : Sh. Amit Goel, CA & Sh. Pranav Yadav, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Sunil Yadav, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 20.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 20.03.2025 ORDER Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member: This Revenue’s appeal ITA No. 1358/Del/2024 and assessee’s cross objection CO No. 41/Del/2024 for Assessment Year 2011-12 arises against the CIT(A)-23, New Delhi’s in case No. CIT(A), Delhi-17/10214/2018-19 dated 03.01.2024, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). ITA No. 1358/Del/2024 CO No. 41/Del/2024 Raj Kumar Kedia HUF 2 2. Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused. 3. It emerges at the outset that the assessee’s cross objection CO No. 41/Del/2024 inter alia raises various legal grounds challenging validity of the impugned reopening going to the root of the matter. Learned counsel takes us to the assessee’s paper book comprising of the Assessing Officer’s reopening reasons dated 28.03.2018 (Pages 23-24) observing therein that it was not assessed either u/s 143(3) or u/s 147 of the Act after having filed the return on 20.07.2011. 4. We next find that the same indeed goes against the factual position on record as the learned Assessing Officer had framed his section 143(3) assessment in assessee’s case on 06.01.2014 (pages 26 to 27 in the paper book). This is indeed coupled with the fact that the learned prescribed authority approval u/s 151 of the Act has recorded it’s satisfaction as “Yes I am satisfied……………..” 5. Faced with this situation, we reject the Revenue’s vehement contentions supporting the impugned reopening initiated beyond a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year i.e. year 2018 by placing reliance in Hindustan Lever Ltd vs. R. B. Wadkar, ACIT (2004) 268 ITR 332 ITA No. 1358/Del/2024 CO No. 41/Del/2024 Raj Kumar Kedia HUF 3 (Bom) that the Assessing Officer’s reopening reasons have to be read as on standalone basis without any scope therein for further addition or substitution therein. We also deem it appropriate to conclude that the learned prescribed authority section 151 approval (supra) is also found to be mechanical in nature as per CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Ltd. (2023) 453 ITR 242 (SC). The impugned reopening forming subject matter of our adjudication is quashed in very terms. The assessee succeeds in CO No. 41/Del/2024 and the Revenue’s appeal ITA No. 1358/Del/2024 stands dismissed. 6. All other pleadings on merits stand rendered academic. 7. To sum up, this Revenue’s appeal ITA No. 1358/Del/2024 is dismissed and assessee’s CO No. 41/Del/2024 is allowed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 20/03/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Amitabh Shukla) (Satbeer Singh Godara) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 20/03/2025 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR "