AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER AMITABH SHUKLA, AM,
This appeal filed by the assessee is against order dated 02.12.2025 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)] arising out of assessment order dated 18.12.2017 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 pertaining to Assessment Year 2011-12. The word ‘Act’ herein this order would mean Income Tax Act, 1961.
The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-
1.That the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in law in dismissing the appeal by an exparte order and not deciding the appeal on the basis of facts on record and grounds of appeal of the appellant.
2.That the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not considering the fact that proper approval u/s 151 of the act was not accorded.
3.That Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in in sustaining the addition of Rs. 51,92,903 @ 5% of turnover based on assumptions, surmises and conjectures of the Assessing Officer without taking into account the audited accounts and other documents filed during the assessment proceedings.
The assessee has raised both legal grounds as well as grounds on merits of the addition to contest the order of the ld. CIT(A). At the outset, the ld. DR argued that both the lower authority’s vis the ld. AO and the ld. CIT(A) have passed ex-parte orders. It was accordingly argued that the assessee is a habitual defaulter and does not merit any consideration at this stage. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay before him in filing of the appeal. The ld. Counsel however brought to our attention that in earlier two years AY 2009-10 and 2010-11, the appellant has succeeded before this Tribunal, on identical facts, qua legal grounds. Thus, attention was invited to order of the Tribunal in ITA No.535/Del/2018 dated 21.05.2025 for AY 2009-10 and in ITA No.718/Del/2026, dated 18.03.2026 for AY 2010-11, respectively. It was submitted that in both the preceding years, which had identical facts, the appellant had contested the re-opening under section 148 for want of valid approval under section 151 of the Act. Concurring with the arguments of the assessee and in compliance to the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Ltd. (2023) 453 ITR 242(SC), the reopening u/s 148 was quashed.
We have noted that the facts of the present case are identical to those in AYs 2009-10 and 2010-11(supra) and no distinguishment of facts was brought on records by the Revenue. Accordingly, in respectful compliance to the decision of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned reopening is bad and we therefore quash the same. All other pleadings on merits stands rendered academic. The appeal of the assessee is allowed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.