NARENDRA PRASAD RAI,DELHI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1692/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 June 2025AY 2012-2013Bench: Sh. 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 was based on the sole reason of cash deposits, but the assessment order did not reflect any additions related to this reason. The reopening was quashed citing relevant case laws.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2012-13 arose against an order passed in proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee did not appear for the hearing and was proceeded ex-parte. The primary issue was the validity of the reopening.

What were the issues?

Validity of the reopening of assessment under Section 147 when the additions made in the assessment order are not in line with the reasons for reopening.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,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: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

For Respondent: Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR
Hearing: 25.06.2025Pronounced: 25.06.2025

ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1072338735(1) dated 20.01.2025, in proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

3.

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 cash deposits of Rs.15,20,000/- whereas his assessment framed on 04.12.2019 Narendra Prasad Rai ended up adding long capital gains of Rs.34,82,186/- in question. It is thus clear that the learned assessing authority has nowhere made any addition qua the above sole reason of reopening.

4.

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.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →