AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM:
The appeals filed by the assessee are against separate orders dated 28.11.2025 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/ NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the CIT(A)”) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) arising out of assessment order dated 29.05.2023 u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act and penalty order dated 14.03.2024 u/s 272B(1) of the Act by the Assessing Officer/Assessment Unit (hereinafter reffered to as “the AO”) respectively for AY 2015-16.
In ITA No. 931/Del/2026, Ld. Authorized Representative for the appellant/assessee submitted that assessment order dated 29.05.2023 for assessment year 2015-16 was barred by time. Reliance was placed on decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal, 469 ITR 46(SC).
Ld. Departmental Representative relied on impugned orders.
From appraisal of record in light of aforesaid rival contention, it is apparent that ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 28.11.2025 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the assessment order dated 29.05.2023 for assessment year 2015-16.
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India and Ors vs. Rajeev Bansal 469 ITR 46 (SC) in para No. 19 observed as under: -
“19.Mr. N Venkataraman, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, made the following submissions on behalf of the Revenue:
a. Xxxx
b. Xxxx
c. Xxxx
d. Xxxx
e. Xxxx
f. The Revenue concedes that for the assessment year 2015-16, all notices issued on or after 1 April 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under TOLA;”
In view of above well settled legal position, the impugned orders dated 28.11.2025 of Ld. CIT(A) and assessment orders dated 29.05.2023 of ld. AO for A.Y. 2015-16 being illegal, are set aside.
Ld. Authorized Representative for appellant/assessee regarding ITA No. 932/Del/2026 submitted that the appellant / assessee after marriage out of ignorance and lack of knowledge obtained PAN No. DEDPK1456J inadvertently. Though, she was filing her ITRs under PAN No. BDWPS0327Q for several year prior to her marriage. Subsequently, the appellant/assessee surrendered PAN No. DEDPK1456J on 15.06.2022. Therefore, the penalty order may be set aside.
Ld. Departmental Representative relied on impugned order.
From examination of record, in light above rival contentions, it is crystal clear that Ld. CIT(A) vide orders dated 28.11.2025 upheld penalty order dated 14.03.2024 u/s 272B(1) of the Act. The appellant/assessee has submitted that after marriage due to inadvertence, she obtained PAN No. DEDPK1456J. Although, prior to marriage, the assessee was filing ITR with PAN No. BDWPS0327Q for several years. The plea of inadvertent bonafide mistake does not smack of malafides as appellant has not gained anything. Moreover, appellant had surrendered of 2nd PAN No. DEDPK1456J on 15.06.2022. In view of above facts, in the interest of justice, the impugned orders dated 28.11.2025 of ld. CIT(A) and 14.03.2024 of ld. AO are set aside.
In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed.