KOMAL KUMAR,SAMBHALHERA vs. ASSESMENT UNIT, ASSESMENT UNIT INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7482/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 January 2026AY 2020-21Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer, despite reopening for cash deposits, ended up disallowing/adding commission income. The addition made was not related to the sole reason for reopening. The Tribunal relied on precedents to quash the reopening.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2020-21 arose against an order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The reopening was based on the sole reason of alleged cash deposits of Rs. 2,62,30,808/-.

What were the issues?

Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer were valid when the addition made was not based on the original reason for reopening.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B

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: 27.01.2026Pronounced: 27.01.2026

ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2020-21 arises against the Assessing Officer’s DIN & order No. ITBA/AST/S/147/2024-25/1074540022(1) dated 16.03.2025, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B 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 cash deposits of Rs.2,62,30,808/- whereas his assessment framed on

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.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →