DCIT vs Sumati Garg

Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:

This Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 arises against the C IT(A)-12 , New De lhi’s order dated 19.01.2018 in case No. 478 /2016-17, in proceedings u/s 143(3)/147 o f the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

It transpires during the co urse of hearing that the Revenue raises it’s sole substantive grievance directed against the CIT(A)’s lower appellate discussion quashing the impugned reopening itself. This is for the precise reason that it was the learned ITO, Ward-28(4), New Delhi who had recorde d his reasons to believe that the assessee’s taxable income liable to be assessed had escaped assessment whereas the ITO, Ward-34(2) had been vested with the assessment jurisdiction in her case. This is further coupled with the fact that the corresponding reopening reasons had also not bee n furnished to her as per the CIT(A)’s lower appellate discussion based on the Assessing Officer’s remand report at page 10 para 7.7 onwards.

Faced with this situation, the Revenue could hardly dispute that it was not the assessee’s jurisdictional Assessing O fficer who had set into motio n the impugned reopening. And also that the learned CIT(A) has quoted Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company Ltd. Vs. CIT 308 ITR 38 (Del.) that even non-supply of reopening reasons recorded to the taxpayer renders the reopening itself as no t sustainable in law. We thus find no reason to interfere with the learned CIT(A)’s detailed lower appellate discussion quashing the impugned reo pening in very terms.

All other remaining pleadings between the parties stand rendered academic.

This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.