JATINDER SINGH,YAMUNANAGAR, HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, YAMUNA NAGAR HARYANA

ITA 781/CHANDI/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 March 2026AY 2011-12Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to examine the assessee's record and the Income Tax Return, passing a non-speaking order. The deposits in the bank account represented the sale consideration of the property, and the re-opening of assessment was not well-founded as the AO did not have complete details.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a return disclosing Long Term Capital Gain on sale of a showroom. However, the AO, based on information about deposits in the assessee's bank account, issued a notice u/s 148 and made an ex-parte addition. The property in question was a SCO which was sold for Rs. 61 lacs, with sale consideration reflected in the bank statement.

What were the issues?

Whether the re-opening of assessment was justified and whether the additions made by the AO were on merit, considering the assessee had disclosed the income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH, ‘A’ CHANDIGARH

Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL

For Appellant: Shri B.M. Monga & Shri Rohit Kaura, Advocates
For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Hearing: 19.02.2026Pronounced: 16.03.2026

PER RAJPAL YADAV, VP

The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 20.05.2024 passed for assessment year 2011-12. 2. The assessee has taken 8 grounds of appeal, however, his grievance revolves around two issues, namely ; A.Y.2011-12 2 a) The ld.CIT (Appeals) has erred in upholding the re-opening of assessment u/s 148/147 of the Income Tax Act. b) The ld.CIT (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.69,75,770/-.

3.

The

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →