AMAN CHAUDHARY,GAUTAM BUDDHA NAGAR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), GAUTAM BUDDHA NAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1877/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 June 2025AY 2011-12Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)2 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 since the Assessing Officer did not make any addition based on the original sole reason for reopening the assessment (acquisition of immovable property), any subsequent addition made during reassessment on a different ground (sale of Rs.21,93,500/-) is not sustainable in law. Citing judicial precedents, the Tribunal deleted the impugned addition.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal challenges the CIT(A) order for AY 2011-12. The assessment was reopened under Section 147/148 concerning the acquisition of an immovable property valued at Rs.1,24,74,000/-. However, the reassessment order dated 19.12.2019 added Rs.21,93,500/- relating to a sale from the relevant previous year, which was not the original ground for reopening.

What were the issues?

Whether additions made during reassessment are sustainable when the initial ground for reopening the assessment is not addressed or resulted in no addition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 144

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

Hearing: 04.06.2025Pronounced: 04.06.2025

Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Sh. Aman Chaudhary, Vs Income Tax Officer, S/o Late Sh. Asha Ram, Shanti Ward-1(1), Niwas, H. No. 620, Chakki Wali Noida, Gali, Atta, Sector-27, Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201301 Uttar Pradesh-201301 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AJTPC5847K Assessee by: Self Revenue by : Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 04.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 04.06.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1070503578(1) dated 20.11.2024, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

It emerges at the outset that there arises the first and foremost issue of validity of impugned reopening itself as the learned Assessing Officer had set into motion section 148/147 mechanism against the assessee regarding acquisition of capital assets/purchase of immovable property having value of Rs.1,24,74,000/- whereas his reassessment framed on

4.

This being the clinching factual position, 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 conclude that once the learned assessing authority has not made any addition qua the above sole reason of reopening, the impugned addition in the assessee’s hands representing the alleged capital gains is not sustainable in law. Deleted accordingly.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →