Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for assessment year 2015-16 was filed against an order concerning proceedings under section 147 read with section 143(3). A delay of one day in filing the appeal was condoned by the Tribunal.
Held
The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147/148 were unsustainable as the disallowance made in the assessment order (under section 24(b)) did not relate to the sole reason recorded for reopening. Following judicial precedents, such a reopening was quashed.
Key Issues
Sustainability of reassessment proceedings under Section 147 when additions made are unrelated to the reasons for reopening.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 143(3), 24(b)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
Date of hearing 09.02.2026 Date of pronouncement 09.02.2026 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2015-16, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1082184649(1), dated 31.10.2025 involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
Delay of one day in filing the asseessee’s instant appeal is condoned in larger interest of justice and in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).
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 alleging excess deduction of Rs.2,28,937/- in the assessee’s case wherein the impugned assessment framed on 29th March, 2022 ended in disallowance under section 24(b) deduction claim of Rs.4,22,465/- which never formed part of the foregoing reopening reasons.
That being the clinching factual position, I hereby quote Ranbaxy Laboratory Vs. CIT (2011) 335 ITR 136 (Del) and CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) holding that such a reopening wherein the learned Assessing Officer does not make any addition qua the sole reason therein; is not sustainable in law. The same stands quashed in very terms therefore. All other pleadings between the parties on merits stands rendered academic.