KAILASH MALIK HUF,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER NEFAC, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7731/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 September 2026AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings are not sustainable when the addition made is not in line with the original reason for reopening. The assessment framed based on such reopening was quashed.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings under section 147 to assess income from other sources. However, the final assessment order added an amount of Rs. 44,01,723/- under the 'business head' as undisclosed income.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of the reassessment proceedings initiated for one purpose but resulting in an addition under a different head of income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 144

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. (VC) &, Ms. Sanya Khurana, Adv
Hearing: 20.08.2026Pronounced: 20.08.2026

P a g e | 1 ITA No. 7732/Del/2026 Kailash Malik HUF (AY: 2017-18) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.7731/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kailash Malik HUF Vs. Income Tax Officer/ 460 Bhai Permanand Colony NeFAC, New Delhi – 110009 Delhi - 110002 PAN: AADHK6966L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by Sh. S. Krishnan, Adv. (VC) & Ms. Sanya Khurana, Adv. Department by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 20.08.2026 Date of pronouncement 20.08.2026 ORDER

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2026-27/1089231676(1), dated 27.05.2026 involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

P a g e | 2 ITA No. 7732/Del/2026 Kailash Malik HUF (AY: 2017-18) 2. Coming to the first and foremost legal issue of validity of the impugned reopening between the parties, it transpires from the perusal of the case records that the learned Assessing Officer had set into motion section 148/147 proceedings for the purposes of assessing the assessee’s as ‘income from other sources’ whereas the assessment framed in his case on 25.12.2024 has ended up in adding as undisclosed income under “business head” of Rs.44,01,723/- only. That being the clinching factual position, I hereby quote Ranbaxy Laboratory Vs. CIT (2011) 335 ITR 136 (Del) and CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) holding that such a reopening wherein the learned Assessing Officer does not make any addition qua the sole reason therein; is not sustainable in law. The same stands quashed in very terms therefore. All other pleadings between the parties on merits stands rendered academic. 3. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 20th August, 2026 Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 10th September, 2026. Rohit, Sr. PS

P a g e | 3 ITA No. 7732/Del/2026 Kailash Malik HUF (AY: 2017-18)

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →