CHERU PALLITHODI ALI AKBAR,KERALA vs. ITO WARD- INTERNATIONAL TAX 1(1)(1), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITITA 28/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 September 2026AY 2019-203 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reopening under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was not sustainable in law. The reasoning was based on the clinching factual position that the Assessing Officer had initiated reassessment proceedings based on specific alleged financial transactions totaling Rs. 2,01,88,175/-, but ultimately made additions of Rs. 99,37,600/- under section 69 of the Act, which were not part of the original reasons for reopening. The Tribunal relied on several precedents, including ATS Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2024), Ranbaxy Laboratory CIT (2011), PCIT v. Jakhotia Plastics (P.) Ltd. (2018), CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (2011), and CIT(E) Vs. BP Poddar Foundations for Education (2023). The ratio decidendi is that if the additions made in the assessment order do not align with the reasons recorded for reopening, the reopening itself is vitiated and cannot be sustained. Consequently, the impugned reopening was quashed, and all other pleadings on merits were rendered academic. The appeal was allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Cheru Pallithodi Ali Akbar, filed an appeal for assessment year 2019-20 against an assessment order dated 24.11.2025 passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-Intl. Tax -1(1)(1), New Delhi. The assessment was framed under section 147 read with section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer initiated section 148/147 proceedings based on alleged financial transactions including time deposits of Rs. 1,97,25,000/-, payments to a non-resident of Rs. 16,790/-, and a statement of reportable account under section 285BA(1) of Rs. 4,46,385/-, totaling Rs. 2,01,88,175/-. However, the impugned assessment order made additions of Rs. 96,85,980/- and Rs. 2,25,000/-, aggregating to Rs. 99,37,600/-, under section 69 of the Act, which were not related to the reasons recorded for reopening.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the reopening under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is sustainable in law when the additions made in the assessment order do not correspond to the reasons recorded for reopening. Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that the reopening was not sustainable as the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not based on the reasons provided for initiating the reassessment proceedings. The Tribunal noted this implicitly by quashing the reopening based on the factual discrepancy. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue on this issue. However, the revenue was represented by a CIT(DR).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 144C(13),Section 69,Section 285BA(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

For Respondent: Dr. Shalini Verma, CIT(DR)
Hearing: 29.07.2026Pronounced: 16.09.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(IT)A No.28/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Cheru Pallithodi Ali Akbar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Fathimas, Kuniyancheri, Ward- Intl. Tax -1(1)(1), Parambu, Perumugham, New Delhi Feroke, Kozhikode, Kerala PAN: ATZPA9812C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Nitin Kumar Rai, Adv. Department by Dr. Shalini Verma, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 29.07.2026 Date of pronouncement 16.09.2026 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2019-20 is directed against the Assessing Officer’s assessment order dated 24.11.2025 having DIN and order no. ITBA/AST/S/147/2025- 26/1082935408(1), involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

IT(IT)A No. 28/Del/2026

2.

Coming to the first and foremost legal issue herein, it emerges during the course of hearing that the learned assessing authority had set into motion section 148/147 proceedings on account of alleged financial transactions i.e. time deposits of Rs.1,97,25,000/- , payments to non-resident of Rs.16,790/- and statement of reportable account u/s 285BA(1) of Rs.4,46,385/-, totaling to Rs.2,01,88,175/- in the assessee’s case whereas the impugned assessment framed on 24.11.2025 ended in making additions of Rs.96,85,980/- and Rs.2,25,000/-, aggregating to Rs.99,37,600/- u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which never formed part of the foregoing reopening reasons. 3. We hereby conclude in light of this clinching factual position and as per 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) that the impugned reopening is not itself sustainable in law once the learned Assessing Officer has nowhere

2 | P a g e

IT(IT)A No. 28/Del/2026

made any addition in the assessee’s hands going by the foregoing reason/information recorded herein. Quashed accordingly All other remaining pleadings between the parties on merits stand rendered academic. 4. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 16th September, 2026 Sd/- Sd/- (AMITABH SHUKLA) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 16th September, 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 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →