SHRI NEERAJ PANDEY,KANPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2)(3), KANPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that once an addition is deleted by a superior appellate authority, the original addition ceases to exist. Therefore, the AO cannot initiate rectification proceedings under Section 154 to modify or enhance a non-existent addition.
What were the facts?
The assessee's income was reopened under Section 147 due to cash deposits during demonetization. The AO added Rs. 21,22,500/- as unexplained income, but this was deleted by the CIT(A). Subsequently, the AO made a rectification under Section 154, enhancing the assessment by Rs. 2,45,500/-.
What were the issues?
Whether rectification proceedings under Section 154 can be initiated to enhance an addition that has already been deleted by a higher appellate authority.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC BENCH, LUCKNOW
Before: SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 28.10.2025, passed by the Addl/JCIT(A)-4, Mumbai for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 31.10.2017 declaring a total income of Rs.5,44,070/-. The case of the assessee was reopened under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act’) on the basis of information in possession of the Department that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs.21,22,000/- in his Bank Accounts No.5711732851 and 9811993242, maintained with Kotak Mahindra Bank during the demonetization period. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated the ITA No.922/LKW/2025 cash deposits of Rs.21,
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Chandan Kumar Bathual vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Cuttack-Iii Range, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Manoranjan Sadangi vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Gopalpur Range, GanjamOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Bijaya Kumar Parekh vs. State Tax Officer, CT And GST Balangir Circle, BalangirOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Puspanjali Bhuyan vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S A2Z Infra Engineering LTD vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026