VIKRAM SHARMA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-28(5), DELHI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
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.
What were the 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.
What were the 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.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show listHide 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.
- CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd.694 citing331 ITR 236 · 2011 · HC
- Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT398 citing336 ITR 136 · 2011 · HC
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.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Whole Sale Cloth Merchant Association, Kota vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central…Jaipur24 Sept 2025Allowed
Also relies on Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that if the Assessing Officer (AO) finds that the income initially believed to have escaped assessment has not actually escaped, he cannot proceed to assess other income without issuing a fresh notice u...
- Moorthy, Salem vs ACIT, Circle-2, SalemChennai23 Apr 2025Allowed
Also relies on Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT and 1 other authority
The tribunal held that reassessment proceedings cannot be continued on the basis of the original notice under Section 148 if the reason for reopening the assessment is no longer valid. A fresh notice would be necessary i...
- Surat Singh, Panipat vs ITO, Ward- 4, PanipatDelhi26 May 2020Allowed
Also relies on Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the agricultural land sold was not a capital asset as it was situated beyond 5.5 km from the municipal limits of Samalkha. Therefore, no capital gains were taxable.
- Lakhmi Chand Yadav, Faridabad vs ITO, Ward-1(4), FaridabadDelhi3 Dec 2024Allowed
Also relies on Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the cash deposit of Rs. 2,00,000/- was explained as 'on-money' from sale deeds. Furthermore, it was held that the reassessment proceedings were not sustainable in law because the initial reason for...
- Sureshkumar Jethanand Rawlani, Mumbai vs Income Tax Officer, 17(3)(4), MumbaiMumbai24 Jul 2024Allowed
Also relies on Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that if the original reason for reopening the assessment is deleted, the entire reassessment proceeding initiated under Section 148 is unsustainable in law, even if other additions were made and upheld....
More judgments on Section 148
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
