SARABJEET SINGH BEDI,NEW DELHI V. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 20, DELHI

ITA 4475/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Sarabjit Singh Bedi, the appellant, contesting an assessment order issued by the ACIT, Central Circle-20, Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-18. The dispute arose from a notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, issued on 31.03.2023, which was beyond the three-year period typically allowed for reopening assessments unless certain conditions are met. The appellant argued that the notice was invalid as it did not meet the threshold of Rs. 50,00,000 for income escapement required to extend the reopening period beyond three years. The respondent defended the notice by suggesting a cumulative assessment across multiple years, which was not supported by the Tribunal's review of the documents.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 826904 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 18-07-2025
• Other Referred Cases: L-1 Identity Solutions Operating Company (P) Ltd. vs ACIT, Mohd. Athar Anjum vs ACIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JITENDER SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: SALIL AGARWAL
• Section: 147; 148; 143(3)

Judgement Text

"P a g e | 1 ITA No.4475/Del/2025 Sarabjit Singh Bedi (AY: 2017-18) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, DELHI BEFORE SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 4475/Del/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Sarabjit Singh Bedi C-706, New Friends Colony, New Delhi New Delhi – 110065 Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-20 Jhandewalan Extension Delhi, New Delhi – 110055 \u0001थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: ABJPB3799H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Sh. Salil Agarwal, Sr.Adv. Sh. Madhur Agarwal, Adv. Sh. Shailesh Gupta, CA Respondent by : Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT, DR Date of Hearing 03.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 09.01.2026 O R D E R PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 28.05.2025 of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ‘FAA’) in Appeals No: Delhi CIT(A)-27//11175/2016-17 arising out of the Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 2 ITA No.4475/Del/2025 Sarabjit Singh Bedi (AY: 2017-18) appeal before it against the order dated 25.08.2023 passed u/s 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by the ACIT, Central Circle-20, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO) for AY: 2017-18. 2. Heard and perused the records. Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that in regards to additional legal ground no. 1 and 2, that the impugned proceedings have been initiated as a result of issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act dated 31.03.2023, which is admittedly has been issued beyond a period of three assessment years from the relevant assessment year i.e. AY 2017-18. As such, the proceedings can only be initiated beyond a period of 3 assessment years upto 10 assessment years if the alleged income escaping assessment exceeds a sum of Rs. 50, 00, 000/-, whereas, the allegation in the instant notice is only of a sum of Rs. 35, 00, 000/-. In view of the above, it is submitted that the instant proceedings are bad in law and void - ab - initio, as the notice under section 148 of the Act has been issued in violation of provisions of section 149 of the Act. Reliance is placed on the following case laws on the aforesaid proposition: Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 3 ITA No.4475/Del/2025 Sarabjit Singh Bedi (AY: 2017-18) (i) L-1 Identity Solutions Operating Company (P) Ltd. vs ACIT (Delhi HC) reported in 174 taxmann.com 969 (ii) Mohd. Athar Anjumvs ACIT (Delhi HC) reported in 174 taxmann.com 337 3. Ld. DR however defended the issue by submitting that the provision does not call for limit to be seen for each year but the cumulative impact has to be seen. 4. At the outset, we observe that the additional ground goes to the root of questioning the assumption of jurisdiction and is legal ground which can be decided on admitted facts. Thus admitted for adjudication. 5. We have taken into consideration rival contention and perused record at page 56 of the paper book copy of notice u/s 148 of the Act has been provided and at page 58 copy of proforma for approval by the specified authority is provided in the same shows that in column No. 7 requiring Assessing Officer to disclose column of income which is escaped assessment the Assessing Officer mentions Rs.35,00,000/- and in column No. 9 it is specifically mention that the reopening is as per Section 149(1) (b) of the Act for a period of more than 3 years but not more than 10 years and u/s 149(1A) of the Act. In column 18 it is specifically mentioned that the conditions laid down in Section 149(1)(b) Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 4 ITA No.4475/Del/2025 Sarabjit Singh Bedi (AY: 2017-18) and 149(1A) of the Act for AY: 2017-18 are fulfilled. At the time of seeking approval itself Assessing Officer has not invoked the logic relied by Ld. DR that cumulative impact for all the years to be reopened has to be seen. Admittedly, the allegation in the said notice is only of an escapement of income to the extent of Rs.35,00,000/- which certainly falls below the threshold of Rs.50,00,000/- and the assumption of jurisdiction for reopening is vitiated. Accordingly, the additional ground is sustained and the impugned assessment order is quashed. The appeal of the assessee allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 09.01.2026 Sd/- (S. Rifaur Rahman) Sd/- (Anubhav Sharma) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated 09.01.2026 Rohit, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "