Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2010-11 arises against an order in proceedings u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act. The reassessment was initiated based on a transaction of Rs.117,22,10,618/- on the commodity exchange, however, the original assessment framed on 27.11.2017 did not add any income related to this reason.
Held
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid. Since the Assessing Officer made no addition regarding the sole reason for reopening in the original assessment, the reopening itself was quashed based on precedent cases.
Key Issues
Whether the reopening of assessment under Section 147/148 is valid when the sole reason cited for reopening was not considered or addressed in the original assessment proceedings, resulting in no addition.
Sections Cited
144, 148, 147
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 : 2010-11 Vikram Sharma, Vs Income Tax Officer, D-29, Pocket-D, Sarita Vihar, Ward-28(5), Delhi-110076 New Delhi-110001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. BGNPS0126B Assessee by: Sh. R. K. Raman, CA Revenue by : Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 25.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 25.06.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11, arises against the Addl./JCIT(A)-1, Vadodara’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1071957173(1) dated 07.01.2025, in proceedings u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
It transpires during the course of hearing that there arises the first and foremost legal issue of validity of the impugned reopening itself as the learned assessing authority had set into motion section 148/147 proceedings against the assessee regarding the sole reason of transaction of Rs.117,22,10,618/- on the commodity exchange whereas his first round assessment framed on 27.11.2017 ended up adding income of
That being the clinching case, 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.