Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2010-11 arose against an order in proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. The reopening was based on cash deposits of Rs. 12,95,500, but the original assessment had already added capital gains of Rs. 19,50,000.
Held
The Tribunal held that the reopening was invalid because the Assessing Authority had not made any addition based on the sole reason cited for reopening. The Tribunal relied on precedents from Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. and CIT vs. Jet Airways (India) Ltd.
Key Issues
Validity of reopening under Section 147/148 when the stated reason for reopening was not the basis for any addition in the original assessment.
Sections Cited
147, 148
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 Rohit Bhadana, Vs CIT(A)/NFAC, H. No. 169, Sector-15A, Delhi Faridabad, Haryana-121002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AVNPB0812F Assessee by: Sh. Ashok Goyal, CA & Sh. Rana Gurtej Singh, Adv. Revenue by : Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 24.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 24.06.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1067611537(1) dated 13.08.2024, in proceedings u/s 147 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 cash deposits of Rs.12,95,500/- whereas his first round assessment framed on 22.12.2017 ended up adding capital gains of Rs.19,50,000/- in question. It
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.