VINOD KUMAR,DELHI vs. ITO, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5823/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 August 2026AY 2020-213 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 the reopening under Section 147 was unsustainable because the addition made in the assessment did not align with the sole reason recorded for reopening. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were invalid.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 alleging cash withdrawals of Rs. 29,55,66,000. However, the final assessment order made an addition of Rs. 19,76,824 under Section 40A(3) which was not part of the original reasons for reopening.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of the reassessment proceedings when the addition made in the assessment order was not based on the reasons recorded for reopening.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 144,Section 40A(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 09.07.2026Pronounced: 09.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.5823/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Sh. Vinod Kumar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Plot No. 884, Flat No. 220, New Delhi 2nd Floor, Near SBI Bank, Shreedhar Apartment, Mehrauli, New Delhi PAN: AHJPK5166F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by Sh. Dev Raj Sharma, Adv. Department by Sh. Nirmal Nangia, Sr. DR

Date of hearing 09.07.2026 Date of pronouncement 09.07.2026 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2020-21, 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/250/2026-27/1088408296(1), dated 11.04.2026 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.

ITA No.5823/Del/2026

2.

Coming to the first and foremost legal issue herein, it emerges during the course of hearing that the learned assessing authority had set into motion section 148/147 proceedings alleging cash withdrawals amounting to Rs.29,55,66,000/- in the assessee’s case wherein the impugned assessment framed on 06.02.2025 ended in making addition of Rs.19,76,824/- u/s 40A(3), which never formed part of the foregoing reopening reasons. 3. I hereby conclude in light of this clinching factual position and as per ATS Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2024) 166 taxman.com 61 (Delhi), Ranbaxy Laboratory CIT (2011) 335 ITR 136 (Del), PCIT v. Jakhotia Plastics (P.) Ltd. (2018) 94 taxmann.com 89 (Delhi), CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) and CIT(E) Vs. BP Poddar Foundations for Education (2023) 148 taxmann.com 125 (Cal) to hold that the impugned reopening is not itself sustainable once the learned Assessing Officer had nowhere made any addition in the assessee’s hands going by the foregoing sole reason recorded herein. All other remaining pleadings between the parties stand rendered academic. 4. This assessee’s appeal is allowed.

2 | P a g e

ITA No.5823/Del/2026

Order pronounced in the open court on 9th July, 2026 Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 12th August, 2026. RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

3 | P a g e

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →