SUBHASH CHANDER KHURANA,DELHI vs. ITO, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2584/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 July 2026AY 2017-20182 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 quashed the reassessment proceedings. It held that the additions made in the assessment order were not related to the reason for which the reopening was initiated.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings based on information regarding a receipt from M/s Hemay Infrastructure Private Limited. However, the final assessment order made additions from a different source, M/s Subhash Goods Carrier, and did not include the amount that formed the basis for reopening.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of the reassessment proceedings when the additions made were not in line with the stated reason for reopening.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

Hearing: 01.07.2026Pronounced: 01.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member ITA No. 2584/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/s Subhash Chander Khurana Vs Commissioner of Income S-234, School Block, Shakar Pur, Tax (Appeals) Delhi- 110092 NFAC New Delhi- 110 001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AARPK3178J Assessee by: Sh. Gagan R. Khandelwal, Adv. Revenue 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 2017-18 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax/National Faceless Appeal Centre (for short, ‘CIT(A)/NFAC’) DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1079527842(1) dated 12.08.2025, involving proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961; hereinafter referred to as, “the Act”.

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

It transpires during the course of hearing that there arises the first and foremost legal issue of validity of the impugned reopening itself as the learned assessing authority had set into motion the impugned proceedings against the assessee regarding the sole reason of receipt of Rs. 15,27,915/- involving M/s Hemay Infrastructure Private Limited whereas his assessment

2 framed on 13.03.2022 in question ended up in adding the sum in issue of Rs. 19.28 lakhs coming from M/s Subhash Goods Carrier’ totaling to Rs. 38.83 lakhs.

4.

It is thus clear that the learned assessing authority has nowhere made any addition qua the above sole reason of reopening. That being the clinching case, I hereby quote Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. Union of India (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del.) and CIT vs. Jet Airways (India) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) to quash the impugned reopening for the above precise reason in very terms.

5.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 01.07.2026.

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(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →