Loading judgment…
Facts
The Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings for AY 2012-13 under Section 147, believing Rs. 1,01,44,603/- representing investment in immovable property had escaped assessment. However, the re-assessment framed subsequently made an addition of only Rs. 37,50,000/- under Section 68 as unexplained cash credits.
Held
Citing precedents (Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. and CIT vs. Jet Airways), the Tribunal held that the reassessment initiated on the belief of escaped assessment due to investment in immovable property could not be sustained when the final addition made was on an entirely different ground, i.e., unexplained cash credits under Section 68. Therefore, the impugned reopening was quashed.
Key Issues
Can a reassessment initiated on specific grounds of escaped assessment be sustained when the actual addition made is on a completely different ground and for a different amount?
Sections Cited
143(3), 147, 68
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: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sundeep Garg, Vs Income Tax Officer, H.No. D-28, Ward No. 28, Near Old Ward-2(4), Ananj Mandi, Inderpuri MOhalla, Faridabad, Palwal, Haryana-121102 Haryana-122001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ABCPG7873N Assessee by: Sh. Vivek Bansal, Adv. & Sh. Sanjay Goel, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Sudeep Dabas, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 10.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 10.07.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1072941414(1) dated 05.02.2025, in proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
It emerges at the outset during the course of hearing that the learned Assessing Officer had recorded his reasons to belief that the assessee’s taxable income of Rs.1,01,44,603/- representing investment in purchase of immovable property in the relevant previous year, had escaped assessment whereas his re-assessment framed on 20.11.2019 ended up in making
This being the clinching factual position, I hereby quote Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. Union of India (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del.) and CIT vs. Jet Airways (India) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) to quash the impugned reopening for the above precise reason in very terms.