SATISH KUMAR,HARYANA vs. ITO WARD-1, NARNAUL, HARYANA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1546/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2026AY 2019-203 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 not sustainable because the Assessing Officer made no addition based on the specific reasons recorded for reopening. Reliance was placed on judicial precedents that quash reopening when the grounds for it are not substantiated in the assessment.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147 based on reasons to believe that income from contractual payments, time deposits, and interest on securities involving foreign sources had escaped assessment. However, the assessment framed only resulted in an addition of 8% expenses.

What were the issues?

Whether reassessment proceedings under Section 147 are valid when the Assessing Officer fails to make any addition based on the specific reasons recorded for reopening.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI

Hearing: 07.04.2026Pronounced: 07.04.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORESHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITAs No.1545 & 1546/Del/2026 Assessment Years :2017-18 & 2019-20 Satish Kumar, Vs. ITO, Mohalla Kailash Nagar, Ward-I, Rewari Road, Narnaul. Mahendragarh, Haryana – 123001. PAN: AQGPK1374F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Parikshit Agarwal, CA Department by Sh. Ravi Kant Chaudhary, Sr. DR

Date of hearing 07.04.2026 Date of pronouncement 07.04.2026 ORDER These assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2017-18 and 2019-20, arise against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC [in short, the “CIT(A)”], New Delhi’s DIN and order nos. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1084981935(1) and ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1084982144(1), respectively, dated 20.01.2026 involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused.

ITAs No.1545 & 1546/Del/2026

3.

It is evident at the outset during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from both the parties that the learned assessing authorities have set into motion Section 148 proceedings against the assessee after recording its ‘reasons to believe’ that his income representing contractual payments, purchase of time deposit and interest on securities involving foreign source had escaped assessment whereas the assessment framed in his case in issue have ended up in an addition of 8% expenses only. It is prima facie clear, therefore, that both the learned lower authorities have nowhere made any addition qua the above reopening reason recorded in the assessee’s case.

4.

Faced with the clinching facts, I hereby quote ATS Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2024) 166 taxman.com 61 (Delhi) and Ranbaxy Laboratory CIT (2011) 335 ITR 136 (Del) to hold that the impugned reopening is not itself sustainable once the learned Assessing Officer nowhere makes any addition in the assessee’s hands going by the foregoing sole reason recorded to quash the same in very terms.

2 | P a g e

ITAs No.1545 & 1546/Del/2026

5.

All other pleadings between the parties on merits stands rendered academic.

6.

These assessee’s twin appeals ITA No.1545 & 1546/Del/2026 are allowed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order pronounced in the open courton 07th April, 2026 Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated:14th May, 2026. dk

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →