Ram Kishan Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
Second Reopening Collapses: ITAT Delhi Quashes 147 for Wrong AY, No Failure to Disclose & Mechanical Approval
Assessee challenged the reassessment order passed u/s 147/144 for AY 2011-12. The original return had been filed on 31.03.2012, processed u/s 143(1), & later reopened vide notice dated 28.03.2013, culminating in an assessment order u/s 147/143(3) on 26.03.2014. Assessee had succeeded in that earlier round of litigation before CIT(A) on 20.12.2016.
Thereafter, AO again reopened the case—this time issuing a notice for the wrong assessment year (AY 2010-11) & completing reassessment for AY 2011-12. The recorded reasons alleged escapement on interest compensation but did not contain any allegation of failure to disclose fully & truly all material facts, which is mandatory where reopening is done beyond four years from the end of the relevant AY, as per the Proviso to Section 147.
Tribunal noted that:
- The earlier reassessment u/s 147/143(3) had already examined the very same issue;
- For reopening beyond 4 years, AO must explicitly establish assessee’s failure to disclose material facts—no such averment existed;
- AO mechanically marked “YES” in the approval form against the query “Is assessment being made for the first time?”, ignoring the earlier completed assessment;
- AO also wrongly stated that “no return was filed”, despite the assessee having filed one on 31.03.2012;
- These showed non-application of mind by both AO & approving authority.
Given the wrong AY in notice, absence of failure to disclose, & mechanical, erroneous approval, the Tribunal held the reopening as invalid. Accordingly, the ITAT quashed the reassessment order & allowed the appeal.
