Loading judgment…
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/-.
Held
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.
Key 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.
Sections Cited
147, 144B, Income Tax Act, 1961
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 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”).
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 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
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.