AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax/National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”) Delhi’s dated 07.06.2024 passed in DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-24/1065486208(1), involving proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
Learned counsel states at the outset that the assessee/appellant herein canvasses its first and foremost substantive ground challenging validity of the impugned reopening. We next note that the assessee has filed its paper book wherein the Assessing Officer corresponding reopening reasons stand complied in pages 50 to 53 thereof. There does not appear to be a dispute between the parties that the learned assessing officer had framed his section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) assessment in its case on 19.12.2024 assessing income amounting to Rs. 71,75,190/-. He thereafter formed reasons to believe that the assessee’s taxable income liable to be assessed had escaped assessment which led to recording of the impugned reopening reasons which finally culminated in the assessment in issue as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.
That being the case, we sought to invite the Revenue’s attention to the learned Assessing Officer’s reopening reasons not even having an iota of indication against the assessee that it had not disclosed all the relevant particulars “fully” and “truly” in the said former round. The same has gone unrebutted from the Revenue side. It is in this factual backdrop we hereby quote Hindustan Lever Ltd vs. R. B. Wadkar, ACIT (2004) 268 ITR 332 (Bom) that such a failure as the Assessing Officer’s part vitiates the entire reopening itself . We thus quash the impugned reopening in the assessee’s case in very terms.
All remaining pleadings between the parties on merits stand rendered academic.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed.