GULMOHAR REALBUILD PVT LTD,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-1(3), FARIDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3089/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 April 2026AY 2011-123 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 assessment was invalid because the Assessing Officer did not proceed to add the alleged accommodation entries as income in the assessee's hands. The reassessment order's approach was inconsistent with the basis for reopening.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings alleging the assessee received accommodation entries of Rs. 3.5 and 4.07 crores. However, the reassessment order treated these sums as unexplained expenditure liable for disallowance, rather than adding them as income.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal examined whether the AO's actions in the reassessment were consistent with the reasons for reopening.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘C’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA

For Appellant: Adv. Ms. Monalisa Maity, Adv
Hearing: 21.04.2026Pronounced: 29.04.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘C’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.3089/Del/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s Gulmohar Realbuild Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward –(3) Private Limited. New CGO Compled, 305, 3rd Floor, Kanchan Block B, NH-IV House, Faridabad Karampura Commercial Haryana 121001 Complex New Delhi- 15 PAN: AADCG8838Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Ruchesh Sinha, Adv. Ms. Monalisa Maity, Adv. Department by Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Date of hearing 21.04.2026 Date of pronouncement 29.04.2026 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2011-12, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1074761260(1) dated

ITA No.3089/Del/2025

20.03.2025, involving proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

We advert to the first and foremost issue of validity of the impugned reopening itself between parties. It is made clear that the learned Assessing Officer’s assessment/ re-assessment herein dated 28.12.2018 from Page 1 Para 2 onwards makes it clear that he had set into motion section 148 proceedings against the assessee alleging the latter to have received accommodation entries of Rs. 3.5 and 4.07 (in crores) from M/s Green Vision Construction Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Japesh Inframart Pvt. Ltd.; respectively, in F.Y. 2010-11. And that his assessment in question on the other hand, ended up in treating the very sum(s) as an instance of unexplained expenditure liable to be disallowed. It is thus an instance wherein he has not added the aforesaid alleged accommodation entries in the assessee’s hands in other words.

2 | P a g e

ITA No.3089/Del/2025

3.

This clinching factual position has gone “un- rebutted” from the Revenue side. Faced with this situation, we hereby quote CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.), Ranbaxy Laboratory Vs. CIT (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del) & PCIT v. Naveen Infradevelopers and Engineers Pvt. Ltd (2025) 479 ITR 463 (Delhi) to reject the Revenue’s vehement contentions supporting the impugned reopening to quash the same in very terms. Ordered accordingly. All other remaining pleadings between the parties stand rendered academic.

4.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 29.04.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (NAVEEN CHANDRA) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 29.04.2026 Pooja Mittal/- 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 →