Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2011-12 arose from an order under section 143(3). The Assessing Authority initiated proceedings based on alleged total transactions of Rs.38,95,30,324/-, which resulted in disallowing/adding commission income and interest income.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the Assessing Authority did not make any additions based on the sole reason cited for reopening. The Tribunal cited precedents to quash the impugned reopening for this precise reason.
Key Issues
Validity of the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Authority.
Sections Cited
143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 arises against the Addl./JCIT(A)-5, Mumbai’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1083074346(1) dated 27.11.2025, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
It transpires during the course of hearing that there arises the first and foremost legal issue of validity of the impugned reopening itself as the learned assessing authority had set into motion the impugned proceedings against the assessee regarding the sole reason of total transactions of Rs.38,95,30,324/- whereas his assessment framed on 28.12.2018 in question ended up in disallowing/adding
It is thus clear that the learned assessing authority has nowhere made any addition qua the above sole reason of reopening. That being the clinching case, I hereby quote Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. Union of India (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del.) and CIT vs. Jet Airways (India) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) to quash the impugned reopening for the above precise reason in very terms.