Delhi ITAT sets aside CIT(A) order for hearing merits despite refusing to condone an eight-month delay, highlighting the need for proper legal procedure and natural justice.
The ITAT annulled the entire reassessment because the Section 148 notice was issued after the Supreme Court–mandated surviving-period cutoff. The ruling confirms that any notice beyond this timeline is void ab initio.
The ITAT ruled that a vague, copy-paste satisfaction note cannot confer valid jurisdiction under Section 153C. Since no specific seized documents were identified, the entire assessment was struck down.
Tribunal clarified that mere generation or digital signing on ITBA does not mean a notice is issued. Proper dispatch to the assessee’s email or portal before the statutory deadline is required for validity.
ITAT held that a 147 reopening based on the incorrect assumption that no return was filed is invalid. Since the assessee proved the return was filed, the entire reassessment was quashed.
The Tribunal ruled that reopening based solely on an Insight Portal flag without independent verification is invalid. It held that absence of tangible material and incorrect factual assumptions renders the entire 147 proceeding void.
ITAT held that reassessment notices issued beyond three years require approval from PCCIT/PDGIT, not PCIT. The invalid sanction vitiated all proceedings, following Rajeev Bansal.
ITAT held that reassessment based solely on earlier-examined facts is invalid. Since shares were sold through a SEBI broker and gains were already taxed, no Section 68 addition could survive.
ITAT Delhi held that granting blanket 153D approval without independent examination vitiates assessments. approvals under section 153D must be individualized and carefully considered.
Aseem Sehgal Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) The appeals concern assessment years 2015–16 to 2017–18 and arise from reassessment orders issued under Sections 147 and 144B of the Income-tax Act. The sole issue examined by the Tribunal is whether the Assessing Officer was justified in framing reassessment under the pre-April 2021 provisions despite issuing the notice […]
