Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal arose from an order involving proceedings under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The reopening was initiated for assessment year 2012-13 based on alleged unexplained investment in properties.
Held
The Tribunal held that the impugned reopening was not sustainable. The lower authorities had not made any addition based on the reasons for reopening. Therefore, the reopening itself was quashed.
Key Issues
Whether the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was sustainable when no addition was made by the lower authorities.
Sections Cited
143(3), 147, 148
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
Date of hearing 22.07.2025 Date of pronouncement 22.07.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl./JCIT(A)- 4, Chennai’s DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- 25/1073408791(1), dated 18.02.2025 involving proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
It transpires at the outset with the able assistance coming from both the parties that the learned lower authorities has set into motion section 148/147 proceedings against the assessee after recording reasons to believe that her unexplained investment in sale/purchase of properties to the tune of Rs.54.63 lakhs/- had escaped assessment whereas the assessment order herein dated 07.11.2019 ended up in disallowance of loss on house property of Rs.1.5 lakhs, which has been confirmed in the lower appellate discussion.
The above being the clinching factual position, I hereby quote Ranbaxy Laboratory Vs. CIT (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del) and CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) to conclude that the impugned reopening itself is not sustainable once the learned lower authorities have not made any addition qua the above sole reason. The same stands quashed in very terms.