PRADEEP KAUR,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2389/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 July 2026AY 2012-132 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 Assessing Officer and CIT(A) erred in directly assessing the assessee instead of the concerned company. The addition was deleted as the lower authorities proceeded against the wrong entity.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerned an addition of Rs. 21.50 lakhs made in her hands. The addition was based on a cash component of Rs. 43 lakhs, where it appeared a company, B.K. Educations, was the actual recipient or payer.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made in the hands of the assessee was justified when the transaction involved a company, and if the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated against the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),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: 01.07.2026Pronounced: 01.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 2389/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Pradeep Kaur S-446, Greater Kailash II, Ward-29(2), New Delhi- 110048 Room No. 1207, E-2 Block Civic Centre, New Delhi- 110001 PAN: AAKPK9929L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Department by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Date of hearing 01.07.2026 Date of pronouncement 01.07.2026 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2020-21, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl./JCIT(A)- 2 [in short, the “CIT(A)”], Chennai’s DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1084616008(1), dated 09.01.2026 involving proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. She is accordingly proceeded ex-parte. 2. Learned departmental representative vehemently argues during the course of hearing that both the Assessing Officer as

ITA No.2389/Del/2026 well as the CIT(A) have rightly initiated section 148/147 proceedings in the assessee’s case for the purpose of making the impugned addition of Rs. 21.50 lakhs in her hands.

3.

That being the case, the tribunal hereby notices from a perusal of the case records that it is not the assessee but a company namely, B.K.Educations who appears to have received or paid; as the case may be, the cash component of Rs. 43 lakhs which stand assessed in her hands to the extent of half share. Meaning thereby that both the learned lower authorities have directly proceeded to assess the assessee than the company/vendor/ vendee concerned, which could not be concurred with by the Tribunal. The impugned addition of Rs. 21.50 lakhs stands deleted for this precise reason therefore.

4.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 1ST July, 2026 Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated:06.07.2026 Pooja Mittal, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

2 | 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 →