MANDEEP SINGH OBEROI,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1)(1) GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2843/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 July 2025AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)4 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

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.

What were the 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.

What were the issues?

Whether the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was sustainable when no addition was made by the lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. 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

Hearing: 22.07.2025Pronounced: 22.07.2025

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.

2.

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.

3.

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.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →