AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2019-20 arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi's DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/10881412569(1) dated 03.10.2025, in proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act").
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
It emerges during the course of hearing that the learned assessing authority in the assessee's case had recorded the following reasons of reopening while setting into motion section 148/147 proceedings against her; reading as follows:
"In the above-mentioned case of the assessee, High Risk CRIU/VRU information through Insight Portal has been received on the basis of the search and seizure action u/s 132 of the income Tax Act, 1961 conducted on 14.03.2022 in the case of Omaxe Groups. Documents seized during the search contains information which shows that the name of assessee Ritu Agarwal(PAN:AAFPA2124G) has been found in the records of M/s Omaxe Group covered by the search conducted on 14.03.2022, during the year under consideration. In view of the above, in accordance with the provisions of Explanation 2 of section 148, approval of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-20, may kindly be accorded to issue notice u/s 148 of the Act in the case of the Ritu Agarwal (PAN:AAFPA2124G) for the assessment year 2019-20."
That being the case, the Revenue could hardly dispute that the learned assessing authority had not even indicated as to what was the assessee’s income liable to be assessed which has escaped assessment thereby setting into motion, the impugned reopening. Case law Amandeep Singh Vs ACIT (2025) 181 taxmann.com 326 (Del.) has already settled the issue that such a failure of Assessing Officer’s part vitiates the impugned reopening itself. Quashed accordingly.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed.