Shiv Punj Vs CIT (ITAT Delhi)
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi, partly allowed the assessee’s appeal against the order dated 03.02.2025 passed by the CIT(IT), Delhi-2 under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act for AY 2019-20. The appeal was filed with a delay of 84 days. The assessee submitted that he was outside India during the relevant period and filed an affidavit stating that the delay was beyond his control. The Tribunal accepted the explanation, condoned the delay, and admitted the appeal for adjudication on merits.
On merits, the assessee challenged the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263, contending that the reassessment order passed under Sections 143(3) read with 147 was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The reassessment proceedings had originally been initiated through notice under Section 148A(b) dated 27.02.2023 to examine unexplained transactions and escaped income relating to bank balances and interest income amounting to Rs. 3,49,881. After considering the assessee’s replies, the Assessing Officer passed an order under Section 148A(d) on 29.03.2023 and subsequently completed reassessment on 15.04.2024 by making an addition of Rs. 3,49,881 as income escaping assessment.
Thereafter, the CIT invoked revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 on the basis that the Assessing Officer failed to conduct proper enquiry regarding survey material arising from a survey conducted in the case of Punj Lloyd Limited on 19.02.2019. According to the CIT, the assessee and another promoter were linked to allegations concerning siphoning of funds from Punj Lloyd Limited and its foreign branches. The CIT held that the Assessing Officer had failed to verify the survey material and related transactions, thereby rendering the reassessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.
