ROHIT BHADANA,FARIDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1242/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 June 2025AY 2010-11Bench: 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 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.

What were the 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.

What were the 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.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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 Appellant: CA &
For Respondent: Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR
Hearing: 24.06.2025Pronounced: 24.06.2025

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”).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

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.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

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 →