ARVIND KUMAR,MEERUT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MEERUT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3734/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 June 2026AY 2017-183 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 not sustainable in law as the addition made was not in line with the sole reason for reopening. Therefore, the reopening itself was quashed.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment of the assessee for AY 2017-18 based on a cash deposit of Rs. 83,05,010/-. However, the assessment framed disallowed only Rs. 8,91,530/- in expenditure and made no addition on account of the cash deposit.

What were the issues?

Whether the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was valid when the subsequent assessment order did not make any addition on the grounds that formed the basis for reopening.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

For Appellant: Adv. Sh. Prafull Kumar, Adv
Hearing: 01.06.2026Pronounced: 01.06.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.3734/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sh. Arvind Kumar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 54, Bajari, Khas Kila Ward-1(1)(1), Parikshit Garh, Meerut Meerut -250406 PAN: BFRPK6472H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by Sh. Alok Kumar Chanda, Adv. Sh. Prafull Kumar, Adv. Department by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Date of hearing 01.06.2026 Date of pronouncement 01.06.2026 ORDER

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, 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/250/2025-26/1079279992(1), dated 05.08.2025 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.

ITA No.3734/Del/2026

2 For the reasons stated in the assessee’s condonation averments, delay of 154 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC). 3. It next emerges during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from both the party’s side that the learned Assessing Officer had set into motion the impugned reopening against the assessee for the sole reason that despite having total cash deposit of Rs.83,05,010/- in the relevant previous year, he had not filed its return whereas his impugned assessment framed on 06.01.2025 ended up in disallowing the expenditure in issue of Rs.8,91,530/- only. That being the case, the Revenue could hardly dispute that the learned Assessing Officer had nowhere made any addition qua the assessee’s cash deposit (supra) forming the sole reason of the reopening. I thus quote ATS Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2024) 166 taxman.com 61 (Delhi), Ranbaxy Laboratory CIT (2011) 335 ITR 136 (Del) and CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) to conclude that the impugned reopening itself is not sustainable in law in very terms. Quashed accordingly. 4. This assessee’s appeal is allowed.

2 | P a g e

ITA No.3734/Del/2026

Order pronounced in the open court on 1st June, 2026 Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 29th June, 2026. RK/- 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 →