Delhi High Court
The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax ... vs Late Shri Ladli Pershad Jaiswal Through ... on 30 May, 2025
Author: Vibhu Bakhru
Bench: Vibhu Bakhru
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 30.05.2025
+ ITA 473/2023
THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME
TAX (OSD), CENTRAL -1 ..... Appellant
Versus
LATE SHRI LADLI PERSHAD JAISWAL THROUGH
LEGAL HEIR- SHRI KARAMJIT JAISWAL
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.
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
JUDGMENT
VIBHU BAKHRU, J.
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'
