Loading judgment…
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.
Held
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.
Key Issues
Whether additions made during reassessment are sustainable when the initial ground for reopening the assessment is not addressed or resulted in no addition.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 144
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 : 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”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
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
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.