VIKAS CHOUDHARY,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-67(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 4911/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 September 2026AY 2012-1349 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Vikas Choudhary, filed an appeal for assessment year 2012-13 against an order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated proceedings under section 147/143(3) based on information regarding immovable property investments of Rs. 34,39,280/-. During assessment, the AO made additions of Rs. 19,06,500/- for cash deposits under section 69A and Rs. 34,39,280/- for unexplained property investments. The CIT(A) deleted the addition related to property investments but upheld the addition for cash deposits. The assessee challenged the validity of the reopening itself, arguing that since the sole reason for reopening was deleted by the CIT(A), the reopening is not sustainable. The Revenue contended that the reopening should be upheld as the AO made additions related to the reopening reasons, even if subsequently deleted by the CIT(A).

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 read with Section 148 of the Act is not valid. The reasoning was that when the sole basis for reopening, which culminated in corresponding additions, is deleted in the lower appellate proceedings before the CIT(A), such a reopening is not sustainable in law. The Tribunal relied on its "larger" bench decision in ITA No. 2650/Del/2024, Mahesh Kumar vs. ITO, decided on 06.08.2025, which settled the matter against the department. The Tribunal noted that the addition on account of unexplained investments in property, which was the sole reason for reopening, was deleted by the CIT(A) and this deletion was not challenged by the Revenue, thus attaining finality. Consequently, the impugned addition could not be sustained, and the reopening was quashed. All other pleadings on merits were rendered academic. The appeal was allowed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the reopening of assessment under Section 147 read with Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is valid when the sole reason for reopening, which led to specific additions, was deleted by the CIT(A)? Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that the reopening is not sustainable in law because the primary basis for initiating the proceedings (unexplained investments in property) was deleted by the CIT(A). The assessee relied on the Tribunal's larger bench decision in ITA No. 2650/Del/2024, Mahesh Kumar vs. ITO, which held such reopenings to be non-est. Revenue's contention: The Revenue argued that the reopening should be upheld because the AO did make additions relating to the reasons for reopening, and the fact that these additions were deleted by the CIT(A) does not invalidate the reopening process itself. The Revenue contended that the reopening is within the "for corners of law."

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 69A,Section 68,Section 10(38),Section 255(4)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCHES, NEW DELHI

BENCH: C

BEFORE SHRI STABEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA 4911/DEL/2025 (Preafeor a¥/Assessment Year: 2012-13)

VIKAS CHOUDHARY ACIT, CIRCLE-67(1) D-27, NEW MULTAN NAGAR, - NORTH WEST DELHI, NEW Vs. |NEW DELHI-110002, DELHI DELHI-110056, DELHI ottenelfy Appellant weet Respondent Permanent Account Number of Assessee: AAEPC7745E

ortterrelf gr /Appellant represented by: | Sh. Sanjay Nath, CA werelf gIRT/Respondent represented by: | Sh. Raghubir Singh, Sr. DR

ware BI ARTE / Date of conclusion of hearing: | 17-SEP-2026 WIT Ht AT / Date of pronouncement: | 17-SEP-2026

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [for short, ‘CIT(A)’], Delhi’s DIN & order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025- 26/1077252805(1), dated 20.06.2025, involving proceedings under section 147/143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

ITA 4911/DEL/2025 VIKAS CHOUDHARY

2.

It emerges during the course of he

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 147

All 48,773 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →