ARCHANA HITESH SOMANI,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD 1(1)(2) , VADODARA

ITA 2169/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 September 2026AY 2012-135 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that if the primary addition on which the case was reopened is deleted, any other additions made on different grounds cannot survive. Therefore, the addition on STCG on shops, which was not the basis for reopening, was deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee's case was reopened based on information about a property sale with a significant difference between sale consideration and stamp duty value. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions under Section 50C for Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) on land and Short Term Capital Gains (STCG) on shops.

What were the issues?

Whether additions made on grounds other than the original reason for reopening can be sustained if the original addition is deleted. The validity of reopening under Section 147 and 148 was also raised but not adjudicated due to relief on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 148,Section 50C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA & SHRI TAPAS RAM MISRA

For Appellant: Shri Sakar Sharma, AR
For Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, SR-DR
Hearing: 04.08.2026Pronounced: 10.09.2026

PER NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 15.09.2025 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2012-13 in the proceeding u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act [hereinafter referred as “the Act”].

2.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed her return of income for A.Y. 2012-13 on 30.07.2012 declaring income of Rs.4,85,290/-. The case of the assessee was reopened on the basis of Archana Hitesh Somani Vs ITO, AY- 2012-13 2 information received that assessee, as a co-owner, had sol

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →