SHIVANI AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-52(1), NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal confirmed the reopening of the assessment, following a similar order for the assessee's sister. However, the issue on merits was set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee invested Rs. 7,29,000 in shares of a paper company, leading to the reopening of assessment. The Assessing Officer treated this as an unexplained cash credit, and the CIT(A) confirmed the reopening and the addition.
What were the issues?
Whether the reopening of assessment under Section 148 was valid and whether the sum of Rs. 7,29,000 constituted an unexplained cash credit under Section 68.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES “SMC”: DELHI
Before: SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI
This appeal by Assessee has been directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)-18, New Delhi, Dated 11.01.2019, for the A.Y. 2009-2010, challenging the reopening of the assessment under section 148 of the I.T.
Act, 1961 and addition of Rs.7,29,000/- under section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961.
2 ITA.No.946/Del./2019 Smt. Shivani Agarwal, New Delhi.
Briefly the facts of the case are that in this case information available on record was that the assessee has invested sum of Rs.7,29,000/- against purchase of scrips of one paper company M/s Blueprint Securities Ltd. On the basis of this information assessment was reopened under section 148 of the I.T. Act. The A.O. considering the material on record, was of the opinion that assessee has entered into colourable devise for avoidance of tax and the receipt of Rs.7,29,000/- by way of cheque is nothing but unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the I.T. Act. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the reopening of the assessment as well as dismissed the appeal on merits.
Learned Counsel for the Assessee at the outset submitted that the case of sister of the assessee has been considered by ITAT, Delhi SMC-Bench in the case of Raakhi Agarwal, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-52(1), New Delhi, in ITA.No.1170/Del./2018 for the A.Y. 2009-2010 and vide Order Dated 10.06.2019 the reopening of the assessment have been confirmed and this ground was dismissed.
However, as regards merit is concerned, the matter have 3 ITA.No.946/Del./2019 Smt. Shivani Agarwal, New Delhi. been restored to the file of A.O. for re-doing the assessment in accordance with Law. Copy of the Order Dated 10.06.2019 is placed on record and provided to the Ld. D.R.
Learned Counsel for the Assessee, therefore, submitted that issue of reopening of the assessment will be decided against the assessee as per the above order. However, the issue on merit may be restored to the file of A.O. as is done in the connected case of Raakhi Agarwal (supra).
The Ld. D.R. also suggested that since identical facts have been considered in the case of sister of the assessee Raakhi Agarwal (supra), therefore, issue on merit may be remanded to the file of A.O. for reconsideration.
In view of the above facts, it is clear that the case of the assessee and her sister Raakhi Agarwal (supra) have been considered by the authorities below on the same issue in respect of purchase of shares of M/s Blueprint Securities Ltd. In the case of Raakhi Agarwal (supra) sister of the assessee, the Tribunal has confirmed the reopening of the assessment and this ground was dismissed. Learned
4 ITA.No.946/Del./2019 Smt. Shivani Agarwal, New Delhi.
Counsel for the Assessee suggested that this ground of appeal of assessee may be dismissed.
Following the reasons for decision on identical facts in the case of Raakhi Agarwal (supra), I dismiss the issue of reopening of the assessment in the matter.
However, the Tribunal in the same Order Dated 10.06.2019 restored the issue on merit to the file of A.O. for reconsideration. Following the Order of the Tribunal Dated 10.06.2019, I set aside the Orders of the authorities below and restore the issue on merit to the file of A.O. with a direction to re-decide the same as per Law as is directed in the case of Raakhi Agarwal (supra). The A.O. shall give reasonable, sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed for statistical purposes.
5 ITA.No.946/Del./2019 Smt. Shivani Agarwal, New Delhi.
Order pronounced in the open Court.
More judgments on Section 148
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Sushama Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026