Full Text
JUDGMENT
THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), CENTRAL -1 ..... Appellant
AND SHRI JAGJIT JAISWAL) ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant : Mr. Ruchir Bhatia & Mr. Anant Mann, Advs.
For the Respondent : Ms. Kavita Jha, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Vaibhav Kulkarni, Advs.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
1. The Revenue has filed the present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] impugning an order dated 27.12.2022 [impugned order] passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [ITAT] in ITA No.561/Del/2022 in respect of Assessment Year [AY] 2002-03.
2. By the impugned order, the learned ITAT had disposed of three separate appeals, albeit raising a common issue – (i) ITA No.4824/Del/2019 in respect of AY 2000-01 captioned DCIT, Central Circle-04, New Delhi v. Anand Pershad Jaiswal; (ii) ITA No.4826/Del/2019 in respect of AY 2000-01 captioned DCIT, Central Circle-04, New Delhi v. Karamjit Jaiswal (Legal heirs of Ladli Pershad Jaiswal); and, (iii) ITA No.561/Del/2022 in respect of AY 2002-03 captioned CIT, Central Circle-04, New Delhi v. Late Shri Ladli Pershad Jaiswal (through Legal Heir Shri Karamjit Jaiswal and Shri Jagjit Jaiswal).
3. The Revenue’s present appeal is confined to the impugned order insofar as it relates to ITA No. 561/Del/2022.
4. The Assessee had filed his return declaring an income of ₹4,55,580/- for AY 2002-03. The Assessing Officer [AO] had received information from Foreign Tax and Tax Research (FT&TR) department to the effect that the Assessee had a joint foreign bank account with his son (Shri Anand Pershad Jaiswal) and the total credit entries during the previous year relevant to the assessment year amounted to ₹14,33,03,690/-. In view of the above, the AO issued a notice dated 30.03.2019 under Section 148 of the Act seeking to reopen the assessment.
5. The Assessee objected to the said notice on the ground that it was barred by limitation as well as on merits. The AO rejected the said contention and passed an assessment order thereby making an addition of ₹11,89,190/- on substantive basis and of ₹5,94,595/- on protective basis.
6. The Assessee challenged the said order before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-23 [CIT(A)] both on the ground of merits as well as on the ground that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act was barred by limitation.
7. The learned CIT(A) following the decision of this court in Brahm Datt v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others: Neutral Citation No.:2018:DHC:7709-DB allowed the appeal by an order dated 29.01.2021. The Revenue appealed the said decision before the learned ITAT. However, the said appeal was rejected, as the learned ITAT found that, in a contextually similar factual matrix, this court had dealt with a similar controversy in Brahm Datt v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others (supra).
8. Aggrieved by the same, the Revenue preferred the present appeal. This court by an order dated 08.02.2024, admitted the present appeal on the following questions of law: “2.[1] Whether on facts and circumstances of the ease, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [“ITAT”] was justified in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)”] in quashing the assessment order on the ground that the Assessing Officer [“AO”] has no power to assume jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act”]? 2.[2] Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in holding that amendment to Section 149, by Finance Act, 2012, which extended limitation for initiation for re-assessment proceedings to 16 years is prospective in nature, ignoring the provisions of Explanation to Section 149(3) which categorically made the amendment retrospective?”
9. The present appeal was also heard along with a batch of matters [W.P.(C) No.2068/2015 captioned U.K. Paints (Overseas) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and connected matters] raising the identical issue as raised in the present appeal. The question whether clause (c) of subsection (1) of Section 149 of the Act is applicable retrospectively by virtue of Explanation to Section 149 has been referred to the larger bench. The present appeal be also directed to be taken up with W.P.(C) No.2068/2015 captioned U.K. Paints (Overseas) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and connected matters.
10. List on 25.07.2025.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J TEJAS KARIA, J MAY 30, 2025 ‘gsr’