SURENDER KUMAR,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD 4(1), GURGAON

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3402/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 April 2026AY 2018-193 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 reassessment proceedings were invalid because the additions made were not based on the reasons recorded for reopening. The Tribunal relied on judicial precedents to quash the impugned reopening.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings based on the assessee's sale and purchase of immovable properties. However, the final assessment order added cash deposits of Rs. 1,88,47,700/- under section 69A read with section 115BBE.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal examined whether the additions made were in line with the reasons for reopening.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 69A,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

For Appellant: Adv. Sh. Saubhagya Agawal, Adv
For Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Adv
Hearing: 16.04.2026Pronounced: 16.04.2026

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2018-19, 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/250/2024-25/1074413225(1) dated

ITA No.3402/Del/2025

12.03.2025, involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144 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 legal issue between parties regarding validity of the impugned reopening itself. A perusal of the case file suggests that the learned Assessing Officer very fairly observes in his assessment order dated 25.03.2023 that he had initiated the impugned reopening recording the assessee’s sale purchase of various immovable properties whereas he ended up in adding his cash deposits of Rs. 1,88,47,700/- u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. Meaning thereby that the learned Assessing Officer has nowhere made any addition qua the aforesaid sole reasons of the reopening in assessee’s hands which has gone fairly unrebutted from the revenue side.

3.

That being the case, he hereby quote Ranbaxy Laboratory Vs. CIT (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del) and CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) to quash the impugned reopening for this precise reason.

2 | P a g e

ITA No.3402/Del/2025

All other remaining pleadings between the parties on merits stand rendered academic.

3.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 16th April, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH AGARWAL) (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 →