MANIK GUJRAL,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT/DCIT, DEHRADUN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 161/DDN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun29 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 once the interest income addition was deleted, the reopening under Section 147 was no longer sustainable as only the estimated expenditure disallowance remained, which was not part of the AO's reasons for reopening.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147 alleging non-disclosure of income and added 10% of expenses and interest income. The CIT(A) deleted the addition of interest income.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 after a significant part of the additions made by the Assessing Officer was deleted by the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DEHRADUN BENCH “SMC”, DEHRADUN

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

Hearing: 26.05.2026Pronounced: 29.06.2026

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM: 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/250/2025-26/1085690994(1), dated 06.02.2026 involving proceedings under section 147 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

ITA No.161/DDN/2026

2.

It emerges at the outset that there arises the first and foremost issue of validity of the impugned reopening itself. This is for the precise reason that the learned assessing authority had set into motion section 148/147 proceedings in the assessee’s case alleged non-disclosure of various incomes who had already sought TDS deduction(s) under sections 194A, 194C and 194H; as the case may be, involving varying sums. And also that he thereafter disallowed/added 10% of the assessee’s expenses coming to Rs.6,01,610/- followed by interest income addition of Rs.1,08,654/- in assessment order dated 29.03.2022. There is further no quarrel that the aforesaid interest income addition stands deleted in the CIT(A)’s lower appellate discussion. 3. Faced with this situation, we are of the considered view that in light of ATS Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2024) 166 taxman.com 61 (Delhi), Ranbaxy Laboratory CIT (2011) 335 ITR 136 (Del), PCIT v. Jakhotia Plastics (P.) Ltd. (2018) 94 taxmann.com 89 (Delhi), CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) and CIT(E) Vs. BP Poddar Foundations for Education (2023) 148 taxmann.com 125 (Cal) to conclude that once the foregoing interest income addition stands deleted, reopening herein is no more sustainable

2 | P a g e

ITA No.161/DDN/2026

in law since what all survives is the estimated expenditure disallowance only which nowhere form part of the Assessing Officer’s reasons. The Revenue’s vehement contentions in support thereof are hereby rejected. All remaining pleadings between the parties on merits stand rendered academic. 4. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 29.06.2026 Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH AGARWAL) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 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 →