ANKIT AGARWAL,NOIDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NOIDA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 February 2026AY 2015-163 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 held that the assessment framed under section 147 read with section 143(3) was not sustainable in law. The reasoning was that the Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings based on specific reasons concerning an alleged excess deduction of Rs. 2,28,937/-. However, the final assessment order included a disallowance of Rs. 4,22,465/- under section 24(b), which was entirely unrelated to the original reasons for reopening. The Tribunal relied on the precedents of Ranbaxy Laboratory Vs. CIT (2011) 335 ITR 136 (Del) and CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.), which state that reopening proceedings are not sustainable if the Assessing Officer does not make any addition based on the sole reason provided for reopening. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed. All other pleadings on merits were rendered academic. The appeal was allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sh. Ankit Agarwal, filed an appeal for Assessment Year 2015-16 against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. The appeal arose from proceedings under section 147 read with section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings under section 148/147, alleging an excess deduction of Rs. 2,28,937/-. However, the assessment framed on March 29, 2022, resulted in a disallowance of Rs. 4,22,465/- under section 24(b), which was not part of the original reasons for reopening. The assessee's appeal was filed with a delay of one day, which was condoned.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment framed under section 147 read with section 143(3) is sustainable in law, given that the disallowance made was not based on the reasons recorded for reopening under section 148/147? (Question of law turning on Section 147 and Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the assessment was not sustainable because the disallowance of Rs. 4,22,465/- under section 24(b) did not form part of the reasons for reopening, which were based on an alleged excess deduction of Rs. 2,28,937/-. The assessee relied on the decisions in Ranbaxy Laboratory Vs. CIT (2011) 335 ITR 136 (Del) and CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.). Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific arguments from the revenue on this issue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 148,Section 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

Hearing: 09.02.2026Pronounced: 09.02.2026

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.

2.

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.

3.

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.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →