IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND KHETTRA MOHAN ROY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2595/DEL/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Pamela Bhardwaj, Vs Income-tax Officer, H. No. 207, Sector-6, Ward-3, Karnal.

Urban Estate, Karnal.

PAN: AKZPB 3402 G APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv; &

Ms. Shilpa Gupta, CA Department represented by Ms. Monika Singh, CIT(DR)

Date of hearing 03.06.2025 Date of pronouncement 25.07.2025 O R D E R PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JM:

The instant appeal, preferred by the assessee, is directed against the order dated 05.02.2018 passed by the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnal, Haryana, under Section 263(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), setting aside the assessment order dated 14.12.2016 passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Karnal, under Section 143(3)/147 of the Act for Assessment Year 2014-15.

2. The matter relates to order issued under Section 263(1) of the Act dated 05.02.2018 passed by the PCIT, Karnal whereby and whereunder the reassessment order under Section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act passed by the Ld. AO dated 14.12.2016 has been held to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue; the issue was set aside to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh adjudication of the same for Assessment Year 2014-15.

3. Brief facts leading to the case is this that assessee an individual deriving income from bank interest, tuition fees and agricultural income filed its return of income at Rs.1,96,530/- on 31.07.2013 in the regular course. The assessee declared Rs.2,00,000/- as agricultural income which was accepted under Section 143(3) of the Act. Thereafter, on 14.09.2015 notice under Section 148 of the Act upon recording satisfaction of escapement of assessment by the assessee on the issue that the cash deposit made by the assessee in her bank account to the tune of Rs.25.50 lakhs during the year under consideration remained unexplained/unverified and further that the source of purchase of property by the assessee amounting to Rs.1,14,92,625/- during the Financial Year 2012-13 remained unexplained/unverified reassessment was initiated. The same was finalised upon accepting the return filed by the assessee meaning thereby returned income of Rs.1,96,530/- and the agricultural income to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- was accepted by the Ld.

AO.

Thereafter, on 19.09.2017, a notice under Section 263 of the Act was issued by the Ld. PCIT, Karnal to reopen the case of the assessee in regard to the source of purchase of property made by the assessee. Upon considering the explanation rendered by the assessee the Ld. PCIT came to a conclusion that order passed under Section 148 of the Act dated 14.12.2016 is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue in accepting the return filed by the assessee; the Ld. AO was therefore, further directed to consider the issue afresh and to pass orders accordingly.

4. At the time of hearing of the instant appeal the Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee has drawn our attention to the additional ground preferred by the assessee challenging the very assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act since the reassessment order passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act dated 14.12.2016 which was sought to be revised under Section 263 itself was invalid on very many counts as mentioned in the application for admission of additional grounds.

5. Having regard to the issue of assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Act as the reason recorded would not have led to the formation of belief of escapement of income by the assessee as alleged or that no valid satisfaction and/or approval under Section 151 was obtained or that the impugned reassessment order passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act without complying the mandatory conditions of the provision envisaged under Section 147 to 1