Jaivir Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
AO’s Reliance on Repealed Law Costs Revenue Dear – Reopening Without Application of Mind Invalid:
Facts:
- No return originally filed for AY 2012-13.
- AO received information of cash deposits ₹17.40 lakh in Punjab National Bank during FY 2011-12.
- Notice u/s 148 issued (29.03.2019) with prior approval u/s 151.
- Assessee filed return on 29.10.2019, explained deposits as sale proceeds of agricultural land.
- AO rejected explanation, added ₹17.40 lakh u/s 69A as unexplained cash deposits; also added bank interest ₹44,782 & disallowed deduction u/s VIA.
- CIT(A)/NFAC confirmed reassessment.
- Appeal before ITAT: Assessee raised legal ground-reassessment invalid due to wrong reference to non-existent section 147(a).
Tribunal’s Findings
1.Non-Application of Mind in Reopening
- In the “Form for recording reasons” , AO cited section 147(a).
- Tribunal noted: s.147(a)/147(b) were omitted from statute from 01.04.1989.
- Use of repealed provisions shows complete non-application of mind by AO & sanctioning authority u/s 151.
2. Judicial Precedents
- Amit Khatri vs. ITO (ITA 2430/Del/2023, AY 2012-13) – reopening based on s.147(b) reference quashed.
- Sumit Suneja vs. ACIT (ITA 3688/Del/2025, AY 2011-12) – similar reopening quashed.
- Kelvinator of India Ltd. (256 ITR 1, Del FB; affirmed by SC) – mere change of opinion not valid basis for reopening; reopening requires tangible material.
3. Application to Present Case
- Since reopening was initiated citing non-existent provisions, it was legally invalid.
- Thus, reassessment order dated 28.12.2019 u/s 147/143(3) quashed.
- Other grounds became academic.
Decision
- Reassessment quashed as void ab initio.
- Assessee’s appeal allowed in fuel
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
Paid content
Become a Basic or Premium Member, or log in if you are already a Basic or Premium member.
