PRAMOD KUMAR GUPTA,BADAUN vs. ITO WARD 2(3), BADAUN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7452/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 August 2026AY 2020-213 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings are not sustainable when the Assessing Officer does not make any addition based on the sole reason for reopening. The reopening was quashed on this ground.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147 based on capital loss from property sale. However, the assessment framed disallowed the cost of construction instead of addressing the capital loss.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal examined whether the assessment framed aligned with the reasons for reopening.

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

Hearing: 19.08.2026Pronounced: 19.08.2026

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2020-21, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi [in short, the “CIT(A)/ NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2026-27/1089179431(1), dated 25.05.2026

ITA No. 7452/Del/2026

involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

2.

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

3.

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 capital loss arising from sale of her immovable property/asset, whereas the assessment framed in her case on 20th February, 2025 has ended up in disallowing the cost of construction coming to Rs.14,14,345/- 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. 2

ITA No. 7452/Del/2026

3.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 19th August, 2026

Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 25/08/2026. Binita, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →