KAVITA PAHUJA,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, WARD 1(1)(2) DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 147/DDN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 May 2026AY 2014-153 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 unsustainable in law because the Assessing Officer had significantly deviated from the original proposal and reasons for reopening. Consequently, the reassessment and consequential penalty were quashed.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147, initially proposing to add 8% profit on the entire turnover. However, the final assessment order dealt with a much smaller amount related to initial investment and share purchase.

What were the issues?

Whether reassessment proceedings are valid when the Assessing Officer deviates substantially from the initial reasons for reopening. Whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained if the primary assessment is invalid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B,Section 69,Section 44AB,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

Hearing: 26.05.2026Pronounced: 27.05.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 147 & 148/DDN/2026 Assessment Years: 2014-15 Kavita Pahuja Vs. Income Tax Officer C/o Sohan Lal, Dunga ITO Ward 1(1)(2) Dunga Kanwali Kothari, Income Tax Office, 13-A, Above Vintage Hall School, Subhash Road, Bidholi Dehradun- 248007 Dehradun- 248001 Uttarakhand Uttarakhand PAN: ALNPP7674F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Pankaj Goel, Adv. Department by Sh. Akash Barnwal, Sr. DR

Date of hearing 26.05.2026 Date of pronouncement 27.05.2026

ORDER These assessee’s twin appeals ITA Nos. 147 & 148/DDN/2026 arise against the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short, “CIT(A)/NFAC”), Delhi’s as many DINs & Orders No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1085079094(1) & ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1085079789(1); both dated

22.01.2026; involving proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961; hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act’. Heard both the parties. Case files perused.

2.

We advert to the assessee’s quantum appeal No. i.e. ITA No. 147/DDN/2026 first of all. She canvasses her first and foremost legal ground/argument that the impugned reopening itself is not sustainable in law as the learned Assessing Officer had proposed to add to invoke section 44AB of the Act for the purpose of making section 69 unexplained investment @8% profit estimation of the entire turnover of Rs. 7,86,67,936/-; coming to Rs. 62,93,434/- whereas the assessment order herein dated 22.05.2023 ended up in treating the initial investment of Rs. 4,00,327/- and the share purchase of Rs. 11,04,800/- totalling to Rs. 15,05,172/- in issue. This clinching factual position has gone unrebutted from the Revenue side.

3.

Faced with this situation, we hereby quote Ranbaxy Laboratory Vs. CIT (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del) and CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) and ATS Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2024) 166 taxman.com 61 (Delhi) to conclude that

2 | P a g e

the impugned reopening itself is not sustainable in law once the learned assessing authority has deviated from its foregoing proposal/reason in the assessee’s case. Quashed in very terms therefore.

4.

The assessee succeeds in her quantum appeal ITA No. 147/DDN/2026.

5.

The assessee’s penalty appeal ITA No. 148/DDN/2026 also follows the suit since involving section 271(1)(c) consequential proceedings.

6.

Both these assessee’s appeals ITA Nos. 147 & 148/DDN/2026 are allowed. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.

Order pronounced in the open court on 27.05.2026 . Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH AGARWAL) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated:27.05.2026 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 →