AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2008-09, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, the “CIT(A)”], Delhi’s-26 order dated 26.08.2025 having DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1080009998(1), involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
It transpires at the outset during the course of hearing that the assessee/appellant herein presses for its first and foremost substantive ground challenging validity of the impugned reopening set into motion by the learned Assessing Officer after recording his following reasons to believe that its taxable income liable to be assessee had escaped assessment; reading as under:
“A perusal of balance sheet for assessment year 2012-13 reveals that the assessee has shown a sum of Rs. 4,40,00,000/-deposited under the head Excise (Under Protest). The company was asked to file the reason for the excise duty paid (under protest). The Authorized Representative of the company has stated that the Officers of the Central Excise Officers made surprise visit to the premises. A letter was written to Deputy Commissioner (AE), Central Excise, Delhi-II, New Delhi to verify the above facts.
The DC(AE), Central Excise, Delhi-11 has informed vide letter C.No.IV (Hars.Prev)12/55/CC/D -II/10/Vol.III/2706 dated 13-1-2015 that a search was conducted by the Anti Evasion on 19-12-2007 and also stated that consequent upon physical verification, finished goods and semi-finished goods collectively valued at Rs.3,60,34,549/- were found unaccounted and were placed under seizure under Rule 24 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and the said seized goods were handed over to Shri Sushil Kumar Jain for safe custody under a Superdaginama dated 19-12-2007,
In view of the information received from the Central Excise(AE), Delhi-11, New Delhi, I have reason to believe that the income of M/s J.V. Industries Pvt. Ltd has escaped assessment to the extent of Rs.3,60,34,549/- pertaining to assessment year 2008-09 by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for their assessment for that assessment year 2008-09 and has understated their income by Rs.3,60,34,549/-, Consequently in view of the explanation 2(c)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the income to the tune of Rs.3,60,34,549/ chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. In this case, original assessment was completed w/s 143(3) by ACIT, Circle 4(1), New Delhi on 10.11.2010, therefore, according to proviso of section 151(1) notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2008-09 is being issued with the prior sanction of CIT-05, New Delhi.”
Suffice to say, the Revenue could hardly dispute that the Assessing Officer had framed his section 143(3) assessment in the assessee’s case on 10.11.2010 for the impugned assessment year 2008-09. And that he thereafter initiated the reopening herein on 19.02.2015 i.e. beyond the period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, after observing that the assessee had not disclosed its particulars in the said former round “fully” and “truly” all the material facts.
This being the clinching factual position, we hereby notice that the learned assessing authority had gone by the assessee’s details only revealing a sum of Rs.4,40,00,000/- deposited under the head Excise Duty paid (under protest) which is sought to be treated as an instance of income escaped assessment to the extent of Rs.3,60,34,549/-. There is further no denial on the Revenue’s part that no other reason has been quoted for initiating the impugned reopening pinpointing the assessee’s specific failure in such an instance of applicability of section 147 read with provisos thereto. Case laws HCL Technologies Vs. DCIT, (2017) 397 ITR 469 (Del.), Discovery Communication Inc Vs. Addl. CIT, (2024) 168 taxmann.com 567 (Del) and Oracle India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2017) 397 ITR 480 (Delhi) to reject the Revenue’s vehement contentions supporting the impugned reopening in very terms. The same is hereby quashed therefore.
All other remaining pleadings between the parties stand rendered academic.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed.