VEDANT BHATNAGAR,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 49(1), DELHI, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 394/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 February 2026AY 2011-12Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)1 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 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.

What were the 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.

What were the issues?

Validity of the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Authority.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. 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

For Appellant: Adv. &, Ms. Reena Gandhi, Adv
Hearing: 11.02.2026Pronounced: 11.02.2026

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”).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

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

4.

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.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →