AUDHYANIK UTPADAK AVASMVIPRAN SHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED,BUDAUN vs. ITO, BUDAUN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1019/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 July 2025AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)1 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 reopening itself was not sustainable in law because the Assessing Officer did not make any addition based on the grounds for reopening, citing precedents.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2018-19 challenged the validity of the reopening of assessment. The Assessing Officer initiated proceedings under Section 147 to examine cash deposits but ended up re-estimating the turnover.

What were the issues?

Whether the reopening of assessment under Section 147/148 is valid when no additions were made by the Assessing Officer based on the reasons for reopening?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,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: 02.07.2025Pronounced: 02.07.2025

Date of hearing 02.07.2025 Date of pronouncement 02.07.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2018-19, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1069788004(1), dated 18.10.2024 involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

It emerges at the outset that the assessee’s first and foremost argument challenges the validity of the impugned reopening itself since the learned Assessing Officer had set into motion section 148/147 proceedings to examine the issue of cash deposits of Rs.1,04,22,000/- whereas he ended up to re-estimate the turnover in question @ 8%; respectively.

3.

This 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 such a reopening itself is not sustainable in law once the learned Assessing Officer had not made any addition qua the above sole reason. Ordered accordingly.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →