PCIT Vs Atul Goel (Delhi High Court)
The present appeal was filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 against an order dated 10.05.2025 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench “A”. The appeal arose from reassessment proceedings initiated against the assessee based on information allegedly received from the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) regarding Client Code Modification (CCM) transactions.
The Assessing Officer recorded reasons stating that, pursuant to an SFIO investigation, the assessee was a beneficiary of CCM and had earned income that had escaped assessment. On this basis, a notice dated 22.11.2019 was issued reopening the assessment. However, the reasons recorded did not refer to any specific transaction or correctly identify the broker involved. During reassessment, the assessee sought details of the alleged transactions, but no such information was supplied. The Assessing Officer nevertheless proceeded to pass an order under Section 143(3) read with Section 147, raising a demand in respect of two transactions routed through a broker identified in the assessment order.
In appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), by order dated 08.07.2024, found that the assessee had already offered the income arising from the impugned transactions to tax under the head “income from other sources” at the highest applicable rate of 30%. On this basis, the CIT(A) held that both the initiation of reassessment proceedings and the resultant assessment order were unsustainable.
