TELEGLOBE ENTERPRISES,RISHIKESH vs. WARD 1(4)(1) RISHIKESH, RISHIKESH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 196/DDN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun30 June 2026AY 2018-194 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer cannot make additions on issues unrelated to the reasons for reopening the assessment. Since no addition was made on the original ground of reopening, the assessment order and the consequent addition are void-ab-initio.

What were the facts?

The assessee's case was reopened based on cash deposits in its bank account. However, the Assessing Officer made an addition for disallowance under Section 40A(3) for cash payments made for purchases, an issue not forming the basis of reopening.

What were the issues?

Whether the Assessing Officer can make additions on issues not forming the basis of the original reopening of assessment. Whether an assessment order is void-ab-initio if the addition is made on an unrelated issue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B,Section 40A(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, DELHI

Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

For Respondent: DR (VC)
Hearing: 23.06.2026Pronounced: 30.06.2026

P a g e | 1 ITA No. 196/Del/2026 Teleglobe Enterprises (AY: 2018-19)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, DELHI

BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.196/DDN/2026 (Assessment Year: 2018-19)

Teleglobe Enterprises Vs. ITO Ward 1(4)(1) 36 Haridwar Road, IDPL Colony, Virbhadra Rishikesh – 249201 Rishikesh Uttarakhand – 249202 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AADFT7785J Appellant .. Respondent

Appellant by : Sh. Pankej Goel, CA Respondent by : Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. DR (VC)

Date of Hearing 23.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement 30.06.2026

O R D E R PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:

This appeal preferred by the assessee against the order dated 09.01.2026 of Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the First Appellate Authority or ‘the ld. FAA’ for

P a g e | 2 ITA No. 196/Del/2026 Teleglobe Enterprises (AY: 2018-19) short) in DIN & Order No: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1084618598(1) arising out of the assessment order dated 16.03.2023 u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed by National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, for AY: 2018-19.

2.

On hearing both sides we find that among other grounds on merits assesse has raised ground No. 1 wherein the impugned assessment order has been challenged for the reason that addition of Rs.18,90,903/- has been made by way of a disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Act, however, no addition was made on account of issue of cash deposits for which the case was reopened.

3.

Ld. DR has vehemently relied the impugned orders, however, we find that assessee’s case was reopened u/s 147 on the basis of an information under the NMS category regarding cash deposits of Rs.1,07,92,100/- in the current account maintained by the assesse, a partnership firm, with Indian Overseas Bank. This aspect is crystal clear by the narration of facts in the assessment order. Then in para 3.1 to 3.3 the assessing officer has discussed the issue in context to query raised and the response of the assesse and thereby concluded that no adverse view can be taken with regard to issue of on cash deposits. However, thereafter assessing officer on verifying the

P a g e | 3 ITA No. 196/Del/2026 Teleglobe Enterprises (AY: 2018-19) details in respect of certain suppliers from whom assesse had made purchases concluded that cash payments were made in violation of Section 40A(3) of the Act and thereby disallowance was made.

4.

Quite apparently in regard to the issue on which reassessment proceedings were initiated by recording relevant reasons for reopening, no addition has been made and addition has been made in regard to a new or a different issue which was not foundation of reopening. Thus, the settled proposition of law being that there is no scope for assessing officer to go into further issue which are not part of reason recorded, if no addition is made in regard to issue for which reopening was done. In this context, we place reliance on the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court’s decision in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. CIT (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del) and CIT vs. Adhunik Niryat Ispat Ltd. reported in (2011) 63 DTR 212 (Del) and Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. reported in (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom). The assessment order and additions are thus void-ab-initio.

5.

As a sequel to aforesaid we are inclined to sustain the ground No. 1. The appeal is allowed. The impugned assessment order is quashed.

P a g e | 4 ITA No. 196/Del/2026 Teleglobe Enterprises (AY: 2018-19) Order pronounced in the open court on 30.06.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay Awasthi) (Anubhav Sharma) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated 30.06.2026 Rohit, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →