SUNDEEP GARG,PALWAL vs. ITO, WARD-2(4) , FARIDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2010/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 July 2025AY 2012-13Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)2 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?

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.

What were the 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.

What were the 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?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 68

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: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Adv. &
Hearing: 10.07.2025Pronounced: 10.07.2025

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”).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

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

4.

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.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →