AKHIL BHARTIYA GUJJAR VIDYA PRACHARNI SABHA,UTTAR PRADESH vs. ITO(E), UTTAR PRADESH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5526/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 July 2026AY 2012-133 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 of the assessment was not sustainable in law because the Assessing Officer did not make any addition related to the cash deposit, which was the sole reason for initiating the reassessment proceedings. Therefore, the reopening was quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee had a cash deposit of Rs. 21,67,148/- but did not file a return. The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment based on this deposit, but ultimately disallowed only Rs. 10,00,000/- in expenditure without making any addition related to the cash deposit itself.

What were the issues?

Whether the reopening of assessment under Section 147 is valid when no addition is made on the ground that formed the basis of reopening (i.e., cash deposits).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Hearing: 08.07.2026Pronounced: 08.07.2026

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, 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/APL/S/250/2025-26/1083502798(1), dated

10.12.2025 involving proceedings under section 147 of the

Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

ITA No.5526/Del/2026

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2 For the reasons stated in the assessee’s condonation

averments, delay of 79 days in filing of the instant appeal is

condoned in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji

& Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

3.

It next emerges during the course of hearing with the able

assistance coming from both the party’s side that the learned

Assessing Officer had set into motion the impugned reopening

against the assessee for the sole reason that despite having total

cash deposit of Rs.21,67,148/- in the relevant previous year, he

had not filed its return whereas his impugned assessment framed

on 14.10.2019 ended up in disallowing the expenditure in issue of

Rs.10,00,000/- only. That being the case, the Revenue could

hardly dispute that the learned Assessing Officer had nowhere

made any addition qua the assessee’s cash deposit (supra)

forming the sole reason of the reopening. I thus quote ATS

Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2024) 166 taxman.com 61 (Delhi),

Ranbaxy Laboratory CIT (2011) 335 ITR 136 (Del) and CIT Vs. Jet

Airways (I) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) to conclude that the

2 | P a g e

ITA No.5526/Del/2026

impugned reopening itself is not sustainable in law in very terms.

Quashed accordingly.

4.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 8th July, 2026.

Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 23rd July, 2026. SR BHATNAGAR 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 →