SUNIL SHARMA,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO WARD 2(3), GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1310/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 April 2026AY 2010-113 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 solely for the purpose of verifying the source of cash deposits, without a categorical finding of escaped income, is not sustainable in law. Therefore, the impugned reopening was quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2010-11 was filed against an order passed under section 147/143(3) of the Income-tax Act. The Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings to verify the source of cash deposits made by the assessee.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer to verify the source of cash deposits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 143(3)

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. Sanjay Prashar, Adv
Hearing: 06.04.2026Pronounced: 06.04.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1310/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Vs. Shri Mohd. Irshad, Sh. Sunil Sharma, S/o Shri Ved Prakash Income Tax Officer Sharma Ward-2(3) H. No. 98/4, Double Storey, Ghaziabad Govindpuri, Uttar Pradesh Modinagar, Ghaziabad-201201 Uttar Pradesh

PAN: AWKPS4448J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Sahil Sharma, Adv. Sh. Sanjay Prashar, Adv. Department by Sh. Ravi Kant Chaudhary, Sr. DR Date of hearing 06.04.2026 Date of pronouncement 06.04.2026 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2010-11, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s order dated 16.06.2025, passed in DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1077046482(1), involving proceedings under section 147/143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’.

ITA No.1310/Del/2026

Heard both the parties. Case filed perused.

2.

Delay of 159 days in filing of the assessee’s instant appeal stands condoned as per his condonation averments which are gone un-rebutted from Revenue side.

3.

It emerges at the outset that this tribunal hardly needs to dwell with the relevant actual matrix at length so far as the first and foremost issue herein i.e. validity of the impugned reopening itself is concerned. This is for the precise reason that the learned Assessing Officer’s corresponding reopening reasons had sought to verify the source of assessee’s cash deposits than having recorded a categoric finding that his income liable to be assessed to the very effect had escaped assessment. Faced with this situation, I hereby quote PCIT vs Manzil Dinesh Kumar Shah (2018) 406 ITR 306 (Guj) and PCIT vs Maheshwari Devi (2023) 454 ITR 755 (Jharkhand) to conclude that the impugned reopening for the purposed of verifying the source of the assessee’ cash deposits is not sustainable in law in very terms. The same is hereby quashed therefore.

2 | P a g e

ITA No.1310/Del/2026

4.

All remaining pleadings between the parties stand rendered academic.

5.

This assessee appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 06th April, 2026

Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 16th April, 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 →