MOOLA RAM KUMHAR,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 47(1), DELHI, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3912/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 July 2026AY 2014-153 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 a reassessment proceeding is not sustainable if the Assessing Officer does not make any addition based on the sole reason for reopening. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 alleging cash credits and bank debits. However, the assessment order disallowed a sum based on a different calculation (NP @ 27.69%) which was not part of the original reopening reasons.

What were the issues?

Whether reassessment proceedings are valid when the additions made are not based on the original reasons for reopening.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,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

Hearing: 02.06.2026Pronounced: 02.06.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.3912/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Moola Ram Kumhar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 372, Shahbad Daulatpur, Ward -47(1), Delhi Delhi PAN: BCAPK5933K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Anup Bhatia, CA Department by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 02.06.2026 Date of pronouncement 02.06.2026 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2014-15, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl./JCIT(A), Thane’s order dated 06.03.2026, having DIN and Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1086953728(1), involving proceedings under section 144 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 herein, it emerges during the course of hearing that the learned assessing authority had set into motion section 148/147 proceedings alleging the assessee had received cash credits of Rs.85 lakhs and debited

ITA No.3912/Del/2026

Rs.81 lakhs from his bank accounts maintained with ICICI bank, Axis Bank, IndusInd Bank and Bank of Baroda. However, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment on 28.11.2019 disallowing Rs.20,00,305/- by applying NP @ 27.69% of the total credits of Rs.81 lakhs (i.e. Rs.22,42,890 - Rs.2,42,585/- , being the income declared in ITR), which never formed part of the foregoing reopening reasons. 3. 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. 4. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 2nd June, 2026 Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 13th July, 2026. RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2 | P a g e

ITA No.3912/Del/2026

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 →