SIMMOTRONICS INFOTECH P LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 22(2), DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.7480/Del/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Simmtronics Infotech (P) Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Ltd., Income Tax, Circle 22(2), Delhi D-18, Okhla Industrial Area Phase-I, New Delhi 110002 PAN: AAJCS1934P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Ankit Kumar, Advocate Shri Lalit Mohan, CA Department by Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR Date of hearing 27.04.2026 Date of pronouncement 29.04.2026 ORDER 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 and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1081288164(1), dated 29.09.2025 involving proceedings under section 147 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. It transpires during the course of hearing that the assessee/appellant canvasses its first and foremost legal issue

ITA No.7480/Del/2025 challenging validity of the impugned reopening itself. Learned counsel takes us to the Assessing Officer’s assessment order dated 23.03.2023 setting into motion section 147 proceedings in its case for disallowing its alleged fictitious purchases sourced from M/s Kamal Enterprises to the tune of Rs.32,74,453/- as bogus in nature. He then refers to the assessment discussion at page 7 that the Assessing Officer had admittedly treated the very sum as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. Learned CIT(A)/NFAC has confirmed the same in the lower appellate discussion. 3. That being the case, the Revenue could hardly dispute that both the learned lower authorities have nowhere disallowed the assessee’s impugned purchases u/s 37(1) of the Act forming the sole reason for reopening. We thus quote; Ranbaxy Laboratory Vs. CIT (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del); CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) & PCIT v. Naveen Infradevelopers and Engineers Pvt. Ltd (2025) 479 ITR 463 (Delhi) to conclude that such reopening not making any addition based on the recorded reasons is not sustainable in law. We thus reject the Revenue’s vehement contentions supporting the impugned reopening and quash the same in very terms. The assessee succeeds in its instant first and foremost legal ground. 2 | P a g e

ITA No.7480/Del/2025 All other remaining pleadings between the parties on merits 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: 29th April, 2026. NV/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

3 | P a g e