RADHA BANSAL,KARNAL vs. ITO WARD 5(3), GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8692/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 January 2026AY 2017-18Bench: 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 noted that the assessment order did not make any addition based on the sole reason for reopening. Therefore, the reopening itself was considered invalid. The Tribunal cited precedents like Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. Union of India and CIT vs. Jet Airways (India) Ltd. to quash the impugned reopening.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2017-18 arises from an order passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. The reopening was initiated based on cash deposits of Rs. 10,50,000/-, but the assessment order added Rs. 30,00,000/- received from the assessee's brother as unexplained.

What were the issues?

Validity of the reopening of assessment initiated by the Assessing Authority.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 148,Section 147

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

Hearing: 28.01.2026Pronounced: 28.01.2026

ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18 arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1083011700(1) dated 26.11.2025, 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 section 148/147 proceedings against the assessee regarding the sole reason of total cash deposits of Rs.10,50,000/- whereas the assessment in question framed on

4.

It is thus clear that the learned assessing authority has nowhere made any addition qua the above sole reason of reopening. This 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.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →