Loading judgment…
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.
Held
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.
Key Issues
Validity of the reopening of assessment initiated by the Assessing Authority.
Sections Cited
143(3), 148, 147
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
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”).
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 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
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.