IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFARU RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sh. Rajesh Gupta, Ward-62(1), 52, Anand Vihar, Delhi Pitampura, North West, Delhi PAN: AANPG5093Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by Sh. Sarthak Gupta, AR Department by Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT(DR)

Date of hearing 18.11.2025 Date of pronouncement 25.11.2025 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM This Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, the “CIT(A)”], Delhi’s-31, DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- 25/1073526214(1), dated 20.02.2025 involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2. Delay of 64 days in filing of the Revenue’s instant appeal is condoned in larger interest of justice and in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

3. Suffice to say, the Revenue herein is aggrieved against the learned CIT(A)’s lower appellate discussion quashing the impugned reopening itself for the sole reason that the Assessing Officer had disposed of the assessee’s objections to reopening in light of GKN Drive shaft GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Vs. ITO, 259 ITR 19 (SC). That being the case, we note that the tribunal’s recent order in the Revenue’ appeal ITA No.1152/Del/2020, dated 27.12.2024 in ITO Vs. Hardeep Singh has already decided the very issue in the assessee’s favour and against the department as under:

“2. The facts of the case as emanating from records are; Notice u/s. 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was issued to the assessee on 23.03.2018. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed return of income on 05.05.2018 declaring income of Rs.1,34,955/- and agricultural income of Rs.2,70,468/-. The assessee filed objections against reopening of assessment on 23.08.2018. The contention of the assessee is that the Assessing Officer (AO) in violation of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd vs ITO, 259 ITR 19 completed the assessment without disposing of objections of the assessee by a separate order. The AO vide assessment order dated 31.12.2018 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act made addition of Rs.2,57,38,200/- on account of cash deposits. Against the said assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) inter alia assailing validity of assessment proceedings u/s. 147 r.w.s 148 of the Act, and the addition on merits. The CIT(A) vide impugned order allowed appeal of the assessee and quashed the assessment order on the ground that the AO before proceeding with the assessment was mandatorily required to dispose of objections of the assessee, as per dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd vs. ITO (supra). Hence, the present appeal by the Revenue. 3. Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhya, representing the department submitted that the objections of the assessee dated 23.08.2018 were considered by the AO and were disposed of on 05.09.2018. The assessee filed same objections on 26.12.2018 at the fag-end, that is just four days before time barring date for completion of assessment. He further submitted that merely for the reason that the AO failed to comply with the procedure indicated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd vs. ITO (supra) would not rendered the assessment proceedings null and avoid. At the most it can be held as procedural infirmity that can be rectified. To support his contention; he placed reliance on the decision in the case of Home Finders Housing Ltd. vs. ITO 404 ITR 611 (Madras). He submitted that against the decision of Hon’ble High Court, the SLP filed by the assessee was dismissed.

4. Au contraire, Shri Ved Jain ap