ASHA MAKKAR,PANIPAT vs. ITO WARD 1, PANIPAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3189/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 July 2026AY 2018-193 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 reassessment proceedings are not sustainable if the Assessing Officer does not make any addition based on the sole reason for reopening. The reopening was quashed.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147 to assess the assessee's capital loss from property sale. However, the final assessment disallowed the cost of construction without addressing the capital loss.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148

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. Ms. Monalisa Maity, Adv
Hearing: 02.07.2026Pronounced: 02.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.3189/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Asha Makkar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 465 R Model Town, Panipat, Ward-1, Haryana Panipat PAN: ABOPM2656H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by Sh. Ruchesh Sinha, Adv. Ms. Monalisa Maity, Adv. Department by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 02.07.2026 Date of pronouncement 02.07.2026 ORDER

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2018-19, 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/250/2025-26/1085007547(1), dated 21.01.2026 involving proceedings under section 147 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. Coming to the first and foremost legal issue of validity of the impugned reopening between the parties, it transpires from the

ITA No.3189/Del/2026

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 23rd March, 2023 has ended up in disallowing the cost of construction coming to Rs.30,31,366/- 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 2nd July, 2026 Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 27th July, 2026. RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 2 | P a g e

ITA No.3189/Del/2026

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 →