AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:
This appeal is preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 17.09.2025 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-31, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the First Appellate Authority or ‘the ld. FAA’ for short) in DIN & Order No: ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1080839372(1) arising out of the assessment order dated 25.12.2019 u/s 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed by ACIT, Ward-52(1), for AY: 2012-13.
On hearing both sides we find that ld. Counsel for the assesse has primarily questioned the assumption of jurisdiction on the basis of reasons required to be recorded for the purpose of assessment u/s 147/148 of the Act being vitiated and ld. DR has defended the same by submitting that the reasons are illustrative and have all the relevant facts.
We find from the submissions that in regard to AY: 2011-12 which happens to be the preceding Assessment Year similar plea was raised on behalf of the assesse before Hon’ble Delhi High Court by way of Writ Petition (C) 12677/2018 and by order dated 18.07.2023, Hon’ble High Court had observed that the reasons as recorded depict non-application of mind by assessing officer, both with regard to provisions which are applicable in the instant case and also insofar as his failure to secure the material that was available with the DCIT in arriving at the market value of the land as on 01.04.1981, which, as noticed form basis of cost of acquisition.
Copy of reasons recorded in present assessment year are provided at page No. 10-14 of the paper book and ld. Counsel has successfully demonstrated that the reasons as stand recorded in AY: 2012-13 are similar in content and substance which have been examined by Hon’ble High Court in regard to AY: 2011-12. That being the state of affairs, we are inclined to sustain the ground No.1 and consequently hold that assumption of jurisdiction for assessment u/s 147/148 of the Act is vitiated and consequential assessment order is void. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed with a consequence to follow as above.