MADHU DWIVEDI,SONEPAT vs. ITO WARD - 3, SONEPAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8036/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2025AY 2009-10Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)3 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's grounds challenging the reopening validity. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s modified assessment which reduced the addition.

What were the facts?

The appeals by the assessee, Smt. Madhu Dwivedi, were against the orders of the CIT(A) which partly upheld the Assessing Officer's additions concerning cash deposits. The proceedings involved reopening under Section 143(3)/148 and 143(3)/147.

What were the issues?

The primary issues were the validity of reopening under Section 148/147 and the merits of the additions made on account of cash deposits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 148,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

For Appellant: Adv. Sh. Shivam Yadav, Adv
Hearing: 28.05.2025Pronounced: 28.05.2025

ORDER These assessee’s twin appeals & 8037/Del/2019 for assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, the “CIT(A)”], Rohtak’s orders dated 23.07.2018 and 22.07.2019 passed in case nos. 238/16-17 and 375/16-17 involving proceedings under section 143(3)/148 and 143(3)/147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), respectively. 2. Heard both the parties. Case files perused.

1.

3. This assessee’s former appeal 1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Rohtak, has erred both in law and on facts in party upholding the order of Ld. Assessing Officer and partially confirming the addition of Ld. Assessing Officer in making addition to the tune of Rs. 5,74,682/-.

2.

That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Rohtak, has grossly erred in partially affirming the addition without giving any reason at all and is completely a non-speaking order.

3.

That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Rohtak, has erred in both in law and facts in partially confirming the addition on adhoc/ estimation basis in absence of any material evidence in hand and ignoring the settled position of law that there can be no addition on estimation basis.

4. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Rohtak, has grossly erred in settled position of law that reopening/reassessment u/s 148 / 147 of the Income Tax cannot be sustained on the basis of borrowed information and without application of mind.

4.

Coming to the first and foremost legal issue of validity of the impugned reopening under section 148/147 of the Act, learned counsel could hardly dispute that the lower authorities herein had taken note of the assessee’s cash deposits followed by the corresponding reopening reasons that her taxable income had escaped assessment. No merit is found therefore in the assessee’s instant first and foremost ground.

5.

Next comes this sole issue on merits between the parties wherein the learned CIT(A) has already modified the Assessing Officer’s assessment findings assessing the assessee’s cash deposits/turnover from that @10% to 8% only followed by yet

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →